Are you actually serious?
Sunday Supplement (2018 and Beyond)
- Thread starter Sanchezter
- Start date
We were regularly complete shit at Anfield under Fergie. So I don't know where you're getting that from. We tended to either play badly and lose or play badly and win.
Calling us a rich man's stoke is ludicrous.
Volume isn't great but this from the fat Duncan Castles is just 
stuff.
stuff.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Nice to come across a fellow resistance member.
I think there's definitely a fear of United becoming No.1 again. If you supported any other club, it must have been rubbish watching Fergie hoover up those titles in the 90s and 00s. I'm sure the ABUs don't want to go back to that, hence why they've been so vitriolic during the Sanchez saga.
But some of the coverage recently, not just of the Sanchez situation, has been laughable. City have been propelled from dire mediocrity by the most outrageous good fortune, and their own version of Willy Wonka is a vile oil regime which laughs in the face of democracy and human rights, and completely rejects the LGBT community - which football is currently trying to so hard to promote. City have used that good fortune to inflate the transfer market and bully less fortunate teams for the last decade. It's all the bad aspects of modern football, crystallised into one club.
Instead of being criticised for it, they're lauded as some kind of paragon of virtue, the plucky underdog fighting the good fight. Meanwhile United, despite making their own money (however crass some of their commercial activities may be) and regularly promoting young players to the first team, are depicted as the evil overlord. It's absolutely absurd and, to be honest, it tells you a lot about the mentality of this country.
Well I say feck em. It might take a few years, but United will eventually get back at No.1 again, and all these sad dictatorship-apologists can stew in their own bitterness.
But some of the coverage recently, not just of the Sanchez situation, has been laughable. City have been propelled from dire mediocrity by the most outrageous good fortune, and their own version of Willy Wonka is a vile oil regime which laughs in the face of democracy and human rights, and completely rejects the LGBT community - which football is currently trying to so hard to promote. City have used that good fortune to inflate the transfer market and bully less fortunate teams for the last decade. It's all the bad aspects of modern football, crystallised into one club.
Instead of being criticised for it, they're lauded as some kind of paragon of virtue, the plucky underdog fighting the good fight. Meanwhile United, despite making their own money (however crass some of their commercial activities may be) and regularly promoting young players to the first team, are depicted as the evil overlord. It's absolutely absurd and, to be honest, it tells you a lot about the mentality of this country.
Well I say feck em. It might take a few years, but United will eventually get back at No.1 again, and all these sad dictatorship-apologists can stew in their own bitterness.
Well said chap. Like someone said on here the other day, it’ll be a sad sad day if everyone else starts hating City and thinking it would be nice if United won a title.
I enjoyed reading that. Sounds all a bit heretical in today's climate.
However bad it may seem in the blue environs of Stockport, always remember resistance is never futile, comrade.
One thing that almost everyone is overlooking when they're baffled as to why Sanchez would choose us over City given the difference in playing styles is couldn't Sanchez be the player that gives Mourinho the confidence to be more expansive?
We don't play a negative brand of football we're just limited by the attacking players we have, Lukaku isn't an Aguero, Mata isn't a Silva/De Bruyne/Ozil, Martial/Rashford are still young and thus inconsistent so aren't at the same level as a Sanchez/Hazard/Salah. It's little wonder in the big games that Jose has up till now gone with a defensive approach when going to the likes of Anfield, if we go there next season with Pogba, Lukaku, Martial And Sanchez and still park the bus then by all means get the pitch forks out
We don't play a negative brand of football we're just limited by the attacking players we have, Lukaku isn't an Aguero, Mata isn't a Silva/De Bruyne/Ozil, Martial/Rashford are still young and thus inconsistent so aren't at the same level as a Sanchez/Hazard/Salah. It's little wonder in the big games that Jose has up till now gone with a defensive approach when going to the likes of Anfield, if we go there next season with Pogba, Lukaku, Martial And Sanchez and still park the bus then by all means get the pitch forks out
Sure did!
Well said. Spot on. The hypocrisy around the coverage of the two clubs has become ridiculous. I don't mind the ABU stuff - it actually reminds me of the SAF years so I know we're becoming more of a threat. But the revisionist bullshit being peddled by Holt in this segment is ridiculous on another level. He claims United fans deserve better yet goes on praise city for losing to Liverpool and castigating us for the draw. I'm a United fan. I'll take a draw at Anfield over a loss any day. We had many similar games under SAF that won us titles. There's absolutely no rational objectivity in Holt's argument.
Same goes for his claim that we're not attractive to players anymore... We got lukaku over Chelsea. We got Matic from Chelsea. Pogba etc etc. Ridiculous. But anyway let the ABU narrative grow. It just means we're regaining that threatening aura again.
Original stuff. Fat Duncan Castles because he's defending United.Volume isn't great but this from the fat Duncan Castles is just
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
One of these twonks recently wrote and published an entire article about Russian WC media facilities not being to his' & colleagues' satisfaction. Apart from the entitlement, why would any reader/fan be interested or care?
The fecking fool thinks we are 12 points behind because we played a defensive game at Liverpool.
We were supposed to blow the game open so Liverpool’s 3/4 man midfield could run riot against our 2? If Klopp wanted the game to open up why did he not take out a CM during the game? Because he didn’t mind a draw either.
We were supposed to blow the game open so Liverpool’s 3/4 man midfield could run riot against our 2? If Klopp wanted the game to open up why did he not take out a CM during the game? Because he didn’t mind a draw either.
Is it any wonder that some Cafites have adopted this kind of mindset in recent months?:
"We might have beaten Chelsea 47-0 but we shouldn't laugh as we're still one place beneath them."
Not sure why the non-United fans are getting such a hump particularly over some criticism of smug faced journalists.
Oh look that cnut Custis is back to being CAF`s friend
I agree with their assertion that Silva might have started believing his own hype. I think he did a decent job at Hull under some tough circumstances. For somebody who hasn't managed in the Premier League for a full season, he was a little over hyped.
You sir are a poet.
Your last paragraph is incredible.
Ollie "headband" Holt hates us with a passion
You should go support the rich mans Espanyol
Are you actually surprised? Our support base is infested with geniuses like this
Ollie Holt and Neil Custis are both embarrassing and very bitter
Anybody who takes a 51 year old who wears an aliceband seriously needs to give their head a wobble.
A mate went to school with Oliver Holt. He did used to go and watch Stockport but he was also a Liverpool supporter.
That Neil Ashton is a weird bloke. His dislike of Mourinho is very strong. He must have wound him up at some point.
Most of these journalists are chancers. The worst out there is Miguel Delaney who is absolutely bluffing a career out for himself. And there's something to be slightly admired about that. It's like he's doing a documentary and will turn around and say "look, that's all you have to do to become a top sports journalist"
He literally makes up transfer stories, just re-hashes stories based on reliable exclusives from others and he manages to get his mug on programmes like this and BBC earlier today.
That Neil Ashton is a weird bloke. His dislike of Mourinho is very strong. He must have wound him up at some point.
Most of these journalists are chancers. The worst out there is Miguel Delaney who is absolutely bluffing a career out for himself. And there's something to be slightly admired about that
. It's like he's doing a documentary and will turn around and say "look, that's all you have to do to become a top sports journalist"He literally makes up transfer stories, just re-hashes stories based on reliable exclusives from others and he manages to get his mug on programmes like this and BBC earlier today.
He also cant speak when he is on tvA mate went to school with Oliver Holt. He did used to go and watch Stockport but he was also a Liverpool supporter.
That Neil Ashton is a weird bloke. His dislike of Mourinho is very strong. He must have wound him up at some point.
Most of these journalists are chancers. The worst out there is Miguel Delaney who is absolutely bluffing a career out for himself. And there's something to be slightly admired about that
He literally makes up transfer stories, just re-hashes stories based on reliable exclusives from others and he manages to get his mug on programmes like this and BBC earlier today.
Ashton and Mourinho may have had a row when Mourinho was at Chelsea. His article about Sanchez on Friday was shithouse.A mate went to school with Oliver Holt. He did used to go and watch Stockport but he was also a Liverpool supporter.
That Neil Ashton is a weird bloke. His dislike of Mourinho is very strong. He must have wound him up at some point.
Most of these journalists are chancers. The worst out there is Miguel Delaney who is absolutely bluffing a career out for himself. And there's something to be slightly admired about that
He literally makes up transfer stories, just re-hashes stories based on reliable exclusives from others and he manages to get his mug on programmes like this and BBC earlier today.
Listening to Holt was tough...Custis defends United very well (seems odd to me, usually he's on the other side?). I guess Holt's points about United summed up are:
1. United play boring football
2. United don't show ambition...
3. United don't show ambition in the 'biggest games'.
4. United don't show ambition in their playing style.
Whilst Custis was saying we're 2nd in the League, we've took on City to buy Sanchez, and we've had many games this season where we've scored 4 goals. How is that lack of ambition? Our playing style might not be continuously aggressive and exciting but we aren't where we are through sheer luck. Mourinho has us play smart, he plays the season not the game.
1. United play boring football
2. United don't show ambition...
3. United don't show ambition in the 'biggest games'.
4. United don't show ambition in their playing style.
Whilst Custis was saying we're 2nd in the League, we've took on City to buy Sanchez, and we've had many games this season where we've scored 4 goals. How is that lack of ambition? Our playing style might not be continuously aggressive and exciting but we aren't where we are through sheer luck. Mourinho has us play smart, he plays the season not the game.
How can you have 'ambition' in the biggest games or playing style?
If anything, our playing style is suited to European competition so that shows ambition to win the CL.
Chelsea have a classical manager as well; and are actually less attacking than us; yet no one gave a monkeys last season when they were winning the league.
These media people are not worth listening to; they are on a constant WUM.
Just to touch on Ollie’s point about the game at Anfield, do any of you wish you’d had more of a go at us that day? Spurs showed the following week just how easy it can be to exploit the space we leave between defence and midfield, and we were in a poor run of form at that time.
Maybe the lack of midfield options meant that Mourinho was limited with what he could do, but I think that sort of game would’ve been perfect for Lingard/Rashford on the counter. I think both came on as subs?
People are quick to have a go at United but that game Liverpool were just as defensive, they didn't play their usual pressing style thus were just as culpable as United for a terrible game.
I don’t think we were defensive but I think Klopp was hesitant with making an attacking change, maybe because our form was so questionable and a defeat would’ve been more damaging psychologically?
United didn’t look like they were winning that game whilst we had a man advantage in midfield.
Weren’t you level on points with City going into that game?
I have no problem with going to Anfield and playing defensively and making sure that we at least get a point. I just thought we also played really poorly on the day, our passing was appalling. Mkhitaryan was terrible, we were missing Pogba and so there was no creativity.
Us not winning the league this season won't hinge on us getting a 0-0 at Anfield.
I think in the reverse fixture at Old Trafford you'll see a much more attacking Utd.
Surely if we are so bad that 0-0 against us is why Liverpool won't win the league either.
This. Sometimes players don't execute the manager's instructions properly. Look at how attacked on the counter and pressed high at times against Arsenal. That's how you play "defensively" but still carry a significant goal threat.
Mourinho is a pragmatist. He's never going to go to Anfield or the Etihad or Stamford Bridge and throw caution completely to the wind, but the idea he wants us to just sit in our own half, lose possession with pointless or terrible passes and provide no service for Lukaku is absurd.
Well said and hits the nail on the head.
Neil Custis is very much a Mourinho and a Mancini fanboy. I doubt he has any particular allegiance to Utd or City.
He is prone to being deliberately antagonistic, like most of the Sunday Supplement guests. I think it is easy to dismiss a lot of the antagonistic ones because their bias is so overt. Some like Ashton, are a bit more subtle on the show (although not in their writing).
He is prone to being deliberately antagonistic, like most of the Sunday Supplement guests. I think it is easy to dismiss a lot of the antagonistic ones because their bias is so overt. Some like Ashton, are a bit more subtle on the show (although not in their writing).
I think most of us would have preferred a more attacking display from United. But it looks a good result after the City game, doesn't it?
Hopefully with Sanchez we'll change our approach in big games. If City are going to win practically every game, it means draws away from home against the top teams aren't good results any more.
I can assure that 90% of them are chancers mate. Completely talking out of their arse, and don't have any contacts.A mate went to school with Oliver Holt. He did used to go and watch Stockport but he was also a Liverpool supporter.
That Neil Ashton is a weird bloke. His dislike of Mourinho is very strong. He must have wound him up at some point.
Most of these journalists are chancers. The worst out there is Miguel Delaney who is absolutely bluffing a career out for himself. And there's something to be slightly admired about that
He literally makes up transfer stories, just re-hashes stories based on reliable exclusives from others and he manages to get his mug on programmes like this and BBC earlier today.
Di Marzio has shown our rabble up for the clueless charlatans they are.
We went to Chelsea and attacked and lost. If Jose had played like we did at Liverpool we would have got a point. Without Pogba we would have lost at Liverpool if we had attacked more. Sure, the players were dire too but the tactics were good. We had a few chances to score too.
Why is that Liverpool there for taking when we were without Pogba while this Liverpool that started the match against City is not there for the taking when they did not even have Countinhio in the side against City?
Why is that Liverpool there for taking when we were without Pogba while this Liverpool that started the match against City is not there for the taking when they did not even have Countinhio in the side against City?