SAF's CL record actually isn't that bad

[Henrik Larsson]

Still, SAF was far from a tactical expert in these ties and often got things wrong.

I just don't seen how this is true. Mourinho against Sevilla, now that is an example of a moron getting the tactics completely wrong. Fergie never stooped to that pathetic level of tactical imbecility as far as I can remember. Similar to when Guardiola the genius had his Bayern side play Real Madrid and lost 0-4 at home while trying to play 3 at the back, and that's two coaches who are supposed to be amongst the best tacticians in the game.

There's just a lot of luck and variance in cup competitions, @VorZakone is 100% right for making this thread. I think the criticism on Fergie's CL record mostly stems from the fact that you had the three younger 'top coaches' Mourinho, Ancelotti and Guardiola winning multiple CL's in a relatively short time.

Mourinho hasn't won the CL for 10 years now, for Guardiola it's 8 years, and Ancelotti will probably not win it in a long time either - and suddenly Fergie's record at United makes perfect sense. Implying Ferguson was 'tactical dinosaur' is right up there with saying 'he made a mistake in letting Pogba go' for me, a perfect indication of people simply not understanding reality.

 

[Champagne Football]

Man Utds record in Europe up until Queiroz arrived in 2002 was a case of underachievement. Even under Queiroz it took a long time for players like Fletcher to mature and adapt to his methods but we eventually got there.

Bayern should have put the game to bed by halftime in the 99 final.

Most seasons pre-Queiroz we were getting dumped out of Europe by teams like Gothenburg, Leverkusen, Monaco, Galatasary when we had the players to slighter these teams, but our European tactics were behind the times.

 

[VorZakone]

I think that SAF's underwhelming CL record is down to three main issues

a- the EPL slow recovery to the ban. There were a time when the Serie A could easily outspend and outshine the EPL. The situation was so silly that United struggled to match the salary of Batistuta who was at the time playing for Fiorentina (ie the equivalent of Everton)
b- Edwards made it quite clear in an interview that the club's main priority was always that of balancing the books and winning the EPL. The CL was a bonus.
c- Pep's Barcelona rise to prominence.

This is exactly why I made this thread. Why do you perceive it to be underwhelming? My OP shows that SAF's record is quite competitive and there's only fine margins between SAF's Man Utd and the top record holders.

 

[VorZakone]

Additionally, SAF kept his teams immensely competitive domestically as well. Granted, Utd were financially the top dogs before Chelsea & City got their cash injections but look at Real Madrid for comparison. 4 CL's in 5 years but 1 La Liga in that same timeframe.

 

[Peyroteo]

I just don't seen how this is true. Mourinho against Sevilla, now that is an example of a moron getting the tactics completely wrong. Fergie never stooped to that pathetic level of tactical imbecility as far as I can remember. Similar to when Guardiola the genius had his Bayern side play Real Madrid and lost 0-4 at home while trying to play 3 at the back, and that's two coaches who are supposed to be amongst the best tacticians in the game.

There's just a lot of luck and variance in cup competitions, @VorZakone is 100% right for making this thread. I think the criticism on Fergie's CL record mostly stems from the fact that you had the three younger 'top coaches' Mourinho, Ancelotti and Guardiola winning multiple CL's in a relatively short time.

Mourinho hasn't won the CL for 10 years now, for Guardiola it's 8 years, and Ancelotti will probably not win it in a long time either - and suddenly Fergie's record at United makes perfect sense. Implying Ferguson was 'tactical dinosaur' is right up there with saying 'he made a mistake in letting Pogba go' for me, a perfect indication of people simply not understanding reality.

He obviously wasn't bad tactically for these ties, but he wasn't elite at it either. Pep is worse, especially away. Mourinho was incredible at it for 6/7 years but has been crap at it for a long time.

Klopp, Ancelotti, Zidane, Allegri, Simeone, 2004-2010 Mourinho and a few others high profile managers I'm forgetting were elite in their managing of these kinds of ties. There are plenty of lesser coaches who specialize in it too, SAF wasn't awful at it but he wasn't fantastic either.

 

[Henrik Larsson]

He obviously wasn't bad tactically for these ties, but he wasn't elite at it either. Pep is worse, especially away. Mourinho was incredible at it for 6/7 years but has been crap at it for a long time.

Klopp, Ancelotti, Zidane, Allegri, Simeone, 2004-2010 Mourinho and a few others high profile managers I'm forgetting were elite in their managing of these kinds of ties. There are plenty of lesser coaches who specialize in it too, SAF wasn't awful at it but he wasn't fantastic either.

I see Champions League succes as a combination of having a great squad of players, a good coach and pure luck. Take the Porto vs United 2004 ties and United - Real Madrid 2013 ties as an example. While no doubt tactical decions by both managers might've played a part in the outcome, surely pure luck is simply a much bigger factor in the end result in these matches. I don't see how it's Mourinho's tactical mastermind that led to a 100% valid goal being dissalowed for no reason which could've changed everything:



Similar in 2013. United draw 1-1 at Bernabéu which is a brilliant result, at Old Trafford it's 1-0 for Manchester United after 65 minutes. So when it's 11 vs 11 after 155/180 minutes of football, Manchester United is winning the tie and it's a Ferguson tactical masterclass.

Then a rather harsh red card comes giving Madrid a massive lucky boost, Luka Modric comes in and scores an absolute unlikely goal (how many goals has he scored in his career?) and somehow Real Madrid end up going through. And on the other side of the spectrum, winning it in '99 after being 1-0 down until the end of the match, again a perfect example of how luck is so extremely important.

 

[Cantonagotmehere]

I see Champions League succes as a combination of having a great squad of players, a good coach and pure luck. Take the Porto vs United 2004 ties and United - Real Madrid 2013 ties as an example. While no doubt tactical decions by both managers might've played a part in the outcome, surely pure luck is simply a much bigger factor in the end result in these matches. I don't see how it's Mourinho's tactical mastermind that led to a 100% valid goal being dissalowed for no reason which could've changed everything:



Similar in 2013. United draw 1-1 at Bernabéu which is a brilliant result, at Old Trafford it's 1-0 for Manchester United after 65 minutes. So when it's 11 vs 11 after 155/180 minutes of football, Manchester United is winning the tie and it's a Ferguson tactical masterclass.

Then a rather harsh red card comes giving Madrid a massive lucky boost, Luka Modric comes in and scores an absolute unlikely goal (how many goals has he scored in his career?) and somehow Real Madrid end up going through. And on the other side of the spectrum, winning it in '99 after being 1-0 down until the end of the match, again a perfect example of how luck is so extremely important.

That red vs Nani still angers me. Hate seeing that ref still having a job, even doing big games.

United had a real good run there under the later SAF years, too bad Barca were on fire.

Also, rewatching that '99 final the other day, Bayern sure did not dominate the way some believe on here.

 

[devilish]

This is exactly why I made this thread. Why do you perceive it to be underwhelming? My OP shows that SAF's record is quite competitive and there's only fine margins between SAF's Man Utd and the top record holders.

I think SAF himself said that his only regret was not winning the CL often. Now if you reread my post you'll notice that I am not blaming Sir Alex for it. Its not SAF fault that the club wasn't in a financial state to compete for it at the beginning of his career, that it always focused on the EPL rather then the CL and towards the end Pep's side dominated football

 

[Nikelesh Reddy]

I think that because the CL ends up being a knock out competition a better metric is finals made. With that perspective then SAF did pretty good.

But I also think he's the best manager of all time and any criticism of him is just ABU sour grapes. feck 'em.

This.It would have been great to win more CL’s under him,but he’s still got a great record in Europe and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he failed to make United competitive in Europe...

 

[RedRonaldo]

4 finals and winning 2 CL isn't bad at all, in fact its considered a good record considered he was playing in the era facing the great Barca (05-10), great Milan(early 90s) and Real Galacticos (early 2000s).
But Fergie strength is not about winning 2 CL, very very few managers in history of game could maintain such high level of success in such a consistent and prolong period. There are many great managers out there who shine through a period but then just past it and faded away (LVG, Mourinho, Wenger etc)

 

[RUCK4444]

I think that because the CL ends up being a knock out competition a better metric is finals made. With that perspective then SAF did pretty good.

But I also think he's the best manager of all time and any criticism of him is just ABU sour grapes. feck 'em.

Pretty much this. I always felt very confident with us in Europe under SAF. He fine tuned the 'nick a goal away and win at home' and I always thought we played differently in Europe than we did in the league (in a good way) to accommodate for it being a knockout tournament.

If it were not for that super dominant Barca side he would have certainly had a hat trick of CL trophies.

Best manager ever. Wish he could live forever, wish we could have one more season under him in his peak just to savour it and remember how feckin' incredible it was with him at the helm.

 

[Snuffkin]

Why do you believe that it is unfair to compare his record to the rest of the continent?


SAF got us to 4 CL finals and apart from a period in the first half against chelsea in 08 we were shit in all 4 finals.

We were shit it is true. Never enjoyed them games until the final minute in the first two. The Wembley game could have been a cricket score, no one could have beaten that team (didn't help that VDS was on the sherry). The first barca game the team selection was wierd and we could have beat them if we had played well.

 

[Peyroteo]

I see Champions League succes as a combination of having a great squad of players, a good coach and pure luck. Take the Porto vs United 2004 ties and United - Real Madrid 2013 ties as an example. While no doubt tactical decions by both managers might've played a part in the outcome, surely pure luck is simply a much bigger factor in the end result in these matches. I don't see how it's Mourinho's tactical mastermind that led to a 100% valid goal being dissalowed for no reason which could've changed everything:



Similar in 2013. United draw 1-1 at Bernabéu which is a brilliant result, at Old Trafford it's 1-0 for Manchester United after 65 minutes. So when it's 11 vs 11 after 155/180 minutes of football, Manchester United is winning the tie and it's a Ferguson tactical masterclass.

Then a rather harsh red card comes giving Madrid a massive lucky boost, Luka Modric comes in and scores an absolute unlikely goal (how many goals has he scored in his career?) and somehow Real Madrid end up going through. And on the other side of the spectrum, winning it in '99 after being 1-0 down until the end of the match, again a perfect example of how luck is so extremely important.

Is everything in football being lucky? If an unlikely player scores then they're lucky, if teams score in the last few minutes then they're lucky, if the ref has made a decision in their favour then they're lucky, if the opposition had a player injured then they're lucky, if they score off a deflection then they're lucky, if they win on penalties then they're lucky, if they get an easy draw then they're lucky, etc... Every team will have things go in their favour and things go against them, you can't just win when everything goes for you. It's just a lot easier to remember the things that went in favour of the teams that won and against the teams that didn't rather than the other way around.

It takes all credit away from players and managers to think like you think. I'd rather credit Mourinho for how he brilliantly managed both ties (Porto 2004 and Madrid 2013 post sending off) or Modric for the brilliant goal than to put it down to luck, same way I credit Fergie and United's mentality and belief in how they turned it around against Bayern in 1999 rather than claim it was all luck and that it's something that would have happened once out of a thousand times.

 

[Peyroteo]

We were shit it is true. Never enjoyed them games until the final minute in the first two. The Wembley game could have been a cricket score, no one could have beaten that team (didn't help that VDS was on the sherry). The first barca game the team selection was wierd and we could have beat them if we had played well.

I'll never understand why people here seem to say this all the time. They were human, they lost a bunch of times. They lost the cup final to a Madrid team with the likes of Arbeloa, Adebayor or Granero playing. In 2009 Chelsea nearly knocked them out over two legs and in 2011 Arsenal was close to it too. United were better than both.

Sure, Barca were better than United both of those years but it's a one off game. To simply shrug it off as if there was no chance of winning is very weird.

 

[Canagel]

It's not that good. Infact the record of the whole club is poor for how strong it's been domestically. It's why we are not the biggest club in the world. Our midfield espeically after 2009 was terrible and in Europe teams that don't keep the ball are exposed badly.

 

[Snuffkin]

I'll never understand why people here seem to say this all the time. They were human, they lost a bunch of times. They lost the cup final to a Madrid team with the likes of Arbeloa, Adebayor or Granero playing. In 2009 Chelsea nearly knocked them out over two legs and in 2011 Arsenal was close to it too. United were better than both.

Sure, Barca were better than United both of those years but it's a one off game. To simply shrug it off as if there was no chance of winning is very weird.

Giggsys off field activities didn't help. Losing Ronaldo and Tevez was neg

 

[Henrik Larsson]

Is everything in football being lucky? If an unlikely player scores then they're lucky, if teams score in the last few minutes then they're lucky, if the ref has made a decision in their favour then they're lucky, if the opposition had a player injured then they're lucky, if they score off a deflection then they're lucky, if they win on penalties then they're lucky, if they get an easy draw then they're lucky, etc... Every team will have things go in their favour and things go against them, you can't just win when everything goes for you. It's just a lot easier to remember the things that went in favour of the teams that won and against the teams that didn't rather than the other way around.

It takes all credit away from players and managers to think like you think. I'd rather credit Mourinho for how he brilliantly managed both ties (Porto 2004 and Madrid 2013 post sending off) or Modric for the brilliant goal than to put it down to luck, same way I credit Fergie and United's mentality and belief in how they turned it around against Bayern in 1999 rather than claim it was all luck and that it's something that would have happened once out of a thousand times.

It's interesting, I would argue it doesn't take credit away at all, for example the way I mention luck being such a big factor in cup competitions could also be a counter argument against people claiming a coach like Mourinho is now past it, or that his methods are outdated.

If anything, logic would dicate he's more experienced now so he should be an even better coach than he was with Porto in 2004. The fact that his Manchester United team made it to three different cup finals within two years makes me think there's actually not much wrong with his methods. So why hasn't he made a CL final in the last 10 years then, despite being at three of the biggest and richest clubs in the world with Real, Chelsea and United?

I'd say mostly because he or his teams didn't have the extra luck like Porto in 2004 or Inter 2010 that's also required to reach a final, and specifically at United I think the squad lacked pure individual quality players as well. Again, that's not to say tactics don't matter either and there are specific matches where you can be critical. But yeah, ultimately it's mostly the lack of luck for me, and the same applies to Ferguson going for 9 years without making a CL final.

Good example with Mourinho was the 2012 CL semi final Real vs Bayern. Ultimately it was penalties deciding who made the final, a complete lottery. If it's 0-0 after 75 minutes and Ronaldo scores that brace then instead of in the first half, the match might've ended during regular time. And now people on here are telling me for years Mourinho was a failure at Real Madrid because he didn't even make the CL final. Margins are way too fine for me. Similar with Guardiola after he left Barca, but I can't be arsed analyzing Bayern's and City's CL runs under him right now.

 

[Bobski]

Missed opportunities aplenty.

Dortmund in 97 was insane, the chances missed over the 2 legs and both their goals being deflected shots, that was painful. We had already lost twice to Juve that season so the final would have them favoured but in the OT game Utd again had missed a shed load of chances, and they were terrified of Giggs.

Madrid in 2000 is a year Utd should have won the tournament, such a careless loss against that Madrid team, panicked after the Keane OG and lost discipline.

Leverkusen another big miss, loss against the Madrid Galacticos was much closer than it was made out to be at the time. Milan in 06/07 was defensive injuries and Utd running out of gas with a small squad against a team purely focusing on the CL. Bayern was a screw up, from the subs in the first game that turned a lead into a defeat then Carrick messing up for their first, the Rafael red, just threw away that tie.

 

[el3mel]

It isn't bad. Just could have been better that's all. We should have really won a third one in his era. Would have done wonders to his record in general. Just one more CL and it would have been great. However at the current state it's not bad, but not great either. Like @Bobski , missed opportunities all around unfortunately.

 

[Luke1995]

It's criminal that we didn't win the 2004 CL or the 2008 FA Cup.

Criminal.

What's more baffling than being knocked out by Portsmouth ? Portsmouth went on to win the whole thing...

And that game, we attacked them the entire time and they got the only goal.

 

[redshaw]

People also expected the likes of Pep and Jose to rack up the CL trophies at the time and looked at Fergie's two as low but it's been a big absence for others too and shows how difficult it can be. Jose just two CL in 18-20 years and no final for Pep without Messi. Zizou wins 3 in first 3 years.

 

[adexkola]

If you're not a simpleton that equates coach competence to CLs won then the OP's post is common sense

 

[GazTheLegend]

I would say we were the best team in Europe in maybe 5-6 seasons worth of Alex Ferguson's time.

For various reasons that didn't translate to winning the CL on those occasions, but if we'd had a bit more luck at the right moments or that bit of quality when needed (in the Semi Final's for instance : RVP vs Real Madrid in the Bernabeu, against Jose Mourinho's Porto we were by far the better team but just couldn't dig out the result, against Barcelona in 2009 if Ronaldo had scored any one of the chances he had in the first 10 minutes) we would have won more than we did.

I don't think it's necessarily a tactical problem with Ferguson, but at the end of the day it takes a LOT to win a CL - every ELITE club wants to do it.

 

[devilish]

When someone discuss SAF's record in the CL one must also consider the club he operated in. United didn't saw the CL as a priority. The club's policy was always that of dominating the home front while balancing the books. That had a huge impact on our CL performance. For example during the in famous CL Semi final against Dortmund back in 97 would Batistuta fail as many chances as Cole did? I very much doubt it. Batigol was a goal machine, a hardworking and more technical version of RVN. We would have still been underdogs against Juventus at the time. However we're talking about Juve here, the CL unofficial bottlers so there was every chance of us winning the game. The same happened after the treble. We had a great side with the right attitude and a manager to match. All we needed were 3 quality replacements (Schmeichel, Irwin and Blomqvist). Instead the club went for Pound shop signings (Bosnich, Silvestre, Djordic, Taibi and Fortune) which were more appropriate to a relegation contender rather then the treble winners.

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

It's crazy how lucky he was in the two finals he won. Don't get me wrong, the seasons were absolutely fantastic, but the way in which we beat bayern that day and the fact that Terry was literally one penalty away from destroying our hearts...

I kinda wish he had won a dominant final.

That win against Bayern will never be forgotten by anybody who witnessed it. Those kind of moments are what makes following United so special, especially with everything had come before it that season. It won't ever be topped in terms of drama that's for sure.

I think SAF's record in Europe is underrated, we had a lot of near misses and bad luck. It is a cup competition after all and I remember being knocked out on away goals at least 3 times off the top of my head and we were the better side in all of those ties.

 

[SER19]

If the standard of being bad is not winning 3 champions leagues then it's a ridiculous standard.

Ferguson reached the semi final 1/3rd of the times he was in the competition.

This, and the 'Ferguson was tactically limited' are two of the greatest myths ever mindlessly peddled on this forum. Right up with Ryan giggs was never one of the worlds best wingers.

 

[Peyroteo]

It's interesting, I would argue it doesn't take credit away at all, for example the way I mention luck being such a big factor in cup competitions could also be a counter argument against people claiming a coach like Mourinho is now past it, or that his methods are outdated.

If anything, logic would dicate he's more experienced now so he should be an even better coach than he was with Porto in 2004. The fact that his Manchester United team made it to three different cup finals within two years makes me think there's actually not much wrong with his methods. So why hasn't he made a CL final in the last 10 years then, despite being at three of the biggest and richest clubs in the world with Real, Chelsea and United?

I'd say mostly because he or his teams didn't have the extra luck like Porto in 2004 or Inter 2010 that's also required to reach a final, and specifically at United I think the squad lacked pure individual quality players as well. Again, that's not to say tactics don't matter either and there are specific matches where you can be critical. But yeah, ultimately it's mostly the lack of luck for me, and the same applies to Ferguson going for 9 years without making a CL final.

Good example with Mourinho was the 2012 CL semi final Real vs Bayern. Ultimately it was penalties deciding who made the final, a complete lottery. If it's 0-0 after 75 minutes and Ronaldo scores that brace then instead of in the first half, the match might've ended during regular time. And now people on here are telling me for years Mourinho was a failure at Real Madrid because he didn't even make the CL final. Margins are way too fine for me. Similar with Guardiola after he left Barca, but I can't be arsed analyzing Bayern's and City's CL runs under him right now.

I look at Pep's CL run after he left Barca and you can say he's been unlucky to lose by small margins a bunch of times but I don't believe it's luck at all, there are coaches that can put the kind of mentality on a team where they don't need to be clearly superior to the opponent in order to go through but I don't think him or most of his players have that. I don't think he's great at managing those close ties and I don't base that on the results only. As for Mourinho, to think he hasn't declined but that he simply got lucky earlier in his career while he's been getting unlucky now is silly when you can look at his decision making and how his teams approach the games and see a clear decline. Over 180 minutes of football it's actually very unlikely you get an undeserved result, definitely a lot more unlikely than people believe. The truth is that the managers who have the best teams and make the best decisions do actually end up winning more so luck can't be that much of a factor.

 

[Luke1995]

That win against Bayern will never be forgotten by anybody who witnessed it. Those kind of moments are what makes following United so special, especially with everything had come before it that season. It won't ever be topped in terms of drama that's for sure.

I think SAF's record in Europe is underrated, we had a lot of near misses and bad luck. It is a cup competition after all and I remember being knocked out on away goals at least 3 times off the top of my head and we were the better side in all of those ties.

Many still get awake at night thinking about the time Porto knocked us out. So unfair

 

[Web of Bissaka]

Yes.
I think it has to do with the high expectations naturally given to the man himself.

It's SAF and football fans knows he's that good and dominant in football especially domestic competitions.
So naturally the idea is he should won more CL.

But then looking at it objectively, isn't his achievement decent enough? won twice and reach finals and semis many times, compare to the average joes top managers.
That's not bad, not great either yes but it's decent good enough.

 

[Gio]

Winning the Cup Winners Cup in 1991 was as big of an achievement as any. Beating that Barca side, who went on to win the European Cup the following year was massive thing.

Yep. As the Champions League is the only show in town now, people forget how prestigious and challenging other European tournaments were before the late 1990s. The gap in quality didn't really exist to the same degree and, in some years, the ECWC or the UEFA Cup would have a stronger field. Defeating Cruyff's Dream Team was a major scalp, particularly for a team with no exposure to European competition during the ban. And if we're talking Ferguson here, his winning of the European Cup Winners Cup with Aberdeen in 1983 was a massive achievement. Even moreso when he's defeated both Bayern Munich and Real Madrid to do it, again showing the strength in these competitions during that era. It wasn't just a case of Ferguson getting his European shit together in the late 1990s or early 2000s, as he overachieved in the early years of his European career securing those two trophies both at, to all intents and purposes, his first opportunity on the continent.

 

[EnelDoobacabra]

Plus that ridiculous sending off of Nani v Real. Although that was quite early in the competition.

This enrages me to even read. I can distinctively recall wasting my entire lung capacity at my television... Most neutral fans that I know of agree we would have been shoe-ins for the rest of that tournament had this one incident not happened. In SAF's last season too! I remember the rage on his face when the camera cut to him and he was beating a chair senseless.

Okay I think I need to take a break, I can feel my blood boiling

 

[wolvored]

Why do you believe that it is unfair to compare his record to the rest of the continent?

We were unlucky in some years not least facing that great Barca side in 09 and 11 but he got team selection and tactics wrong in both of those games.

SAF got us to 4 CL finals and apart from a period in the first half against chelsea in 08 we were shit in all 4 finals. We should definitely have won another CL under him, he had the players to do it but too often got it wrong tactically.

I Would agree with this. To put it into context and you have to do this to compare like for like he managed Utd full seasons from 87/88-12/13: 26 full seasons. If you go from his first title winning season 92/93: 21 seasons. To only reach 4 finals in that time, proves he was tactically naive in Europe. In the 2 we won we were lucky as well. Fergie is a great manager domestically; he has no peers. In Europe it was a different story as far as the European cup/Champions league goes.

 

[Lentwood]

The criticism usually stems from United’s record in Europe in the 90s which was absolutely horrendous (98/99 the obvious exception!). Considering how dominant the Utd team was domestically, we should have done much better

There where also a few big disappointments in the early Noughties and I think it’s fair to say that it only really from about 2006 onwards that Utd punched their weight in Europe

92/93 - knocked out of UEFA Cup buy Torpedo Moscow
93/94 - knocked out by Galatasaray
94/95 - knockout out in the Group stage
95/96 - knocked out of UEFA Cup by Rotor Volgograd
96/97 - knocked out in the SF by Dortmund
97/98 - knocked out in QF by Monaco
2001/02 - knocked out in SF by Bayer Leverkusen
2003/04 - knocked out in Second Round by Porto
2005/06 - knocked out in Group stage

 

[Infordin]

Honest question: from 1992 until 2013, did Manchester United at any point ever have the best XI in Europe (personnel wise)?

@VorZakone thoughts?

 

[VorZakone]

Honest question: from 1992 until 2013, did Manchester United at any point ever have the best XI in Europe (personnel wise)?

@VorZakone thoughts?

I don't really remember all the XI's of other clubs to be honest, so that's a hard question.

I think the 07/08 XI was very strong though and I can't think of other XI's that would be a clear upgrade.

 

[bp19992]

Honest question: from 1992 until 2013, did Manchester United at any point ever have the best XI in Europe (personnel wise)?

@VorZakone thoughts?

2007-2008 United was better than Barcelona imo. I don't think there was any other team around during that time that could match United. The Barcelona team that came after that season was quite a bit better though.

 

[Infordin]

I think the 07/08 XI was very strong though and I can't think of other XI's that would be a clear upgrade.

In that season, we had Messi, Ronaldinho, Henry, Eto’o, Xavi, Iniesta, Yaya Toure, Puyol, Abidal... I think our XI was probably the best in the world, but Rijkaard had already given up on football by then.

I don’t believe that SAF ever had the best XI in the world at his disposal. He probably came close a few times, but never the best.

Edit: Now thinking about it, Man United probably did have the best team in 1999. I can’t think of anyone with a better starting XI. Juve and Madrid both came close but I don’t think either were as good.

 

[VorZakone]

In that season, we had Messi, Ronaldinho, Henry, Eto’o, Xavi, Iniesta, Yaya Toure, Puyol, Abidal... I think our XI was probably the best in the world, but Rijkaard had already given up on football by then.

I don’t believe that SAF ever had the best XI in the world at his disposal. He probably came close a few times, but never the best.

Edit: Now thinking about it, Man United probably did have the best team in 1999. I can’t think of anyone with a better starting XI. Juve and Madrid both came close but I don’t think either were as good.

The 1999 XI was amazing too. An interesting note is that both Keane and Scholes couldn't play in the final. With those 2 you could argue Utd would have played better against Bayern.

 

[VeevaVee]

It still does seem a bit strange we didn’t win more but big European teams were better.

 

[Bobski]

I think people have to take into account the footballing landscape of the time( 90's- early 00's). Teams squads were not as stacked with talent, it was spread wider, meaning more teams capable of challenging. The days of super squads with world class talents on the bench, or even in the stands, and total financial disparity were yet to come. Madrid winning 4 in a row with the squad they had is still impressive but it was weighted in their favour given the talent they accumulated.