The myth that RVN leaving improved us.

[Eckers99]

To be fair, almost all of our creativity came directly from Ronaldo. Compared to the pure goal poacher he has been recently, it might be a bit strange to think of him at United when he an incredible dribbler and passer. Also Scholes returning and Giggs having another renaissance helped our attacking play immensely. Obviously Pat was far far better than Sheasy or Heinze at attacking the left wing as well.

Ruud wasn't just a 6 yard box player like Inzaghi, he had a brilliant touch and an all round intelligent player. Just because he was lanky and awkward looking doesn't mean he was a slouch either. I do agree with the half arsed....but think that was just due to the falling out with Ferguson. If he got the kick up the arse and upped his work rate he still would have been great - as he showed with Real. All in all, it was a pity we didn't get to see prime Ronaldo, Rooney and Ruud in the same side.

Ruud was an intelligent player but he could go for long periods in games when he didn't look involved (or looked dormant) but would then score with half a chance. And he played very centrally, so there wasn't much interchanging with other players. His best work came around the box, either with his back to goal or making runs off the shoulder.

That said, I do agree that it would've been great to see him feeding off prime Rooney and Ronaldo. Despite everything I think he's the best pure striker we've had in the last 40 years. Just think we were a more fluid, exciting side in the years after he left. Whether that's down to his departure is pure conjecture

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Just think we were a more fluid, exciting side in the years after he left.

Something that is not in question, but surely more down to shedding the Quinton Fortune, Liam Miller, O'Shea, Smith, Silvestre years and moving into prime Rooney & Ronaldo, buying Carrick, Tevez, Vidic, Evra, Nani etc etc...

 

[Beachryan]

Spoiler: Rude not to....

*sob*

 

[Beachryan]

I guess the other way of thinking about it: peak RVP < peak RVN. Just had better support.

 

[#07]

Spoiler: Rude not to....

Why stop there?

 

[NinjaZombie]

Ruud was brilliant. The best striker I've seen to play for United.

But shifting him out was not quite based on footballing reasons. I think it was based on actually allowing Rooney and Ronaldo to take responsibility to grow and to be the players they eventually became for us.

 

[ti vu]

Thing is RVN is a box forward. Our play with him is get the ball to the wing so he can move in the box then wingers get the ball into the box. He drew defender to himself, but he wanted to be the main man which means an crowded box. RVN & Ronaldo fought for the very reason that RVN thought Ronaldo took too long on the ball out wide. Our play shifted to letting Ronaldo having more freedom the following years!

Larsson has very good movement too which helps opening the space. Smith didn't play much and is not a box forward neither. They're often instructed to make movement to wide area to help open route for Ronaldo to cut inside.

Ronaldo would improve regardless but there would be doubt on his improving rate if SAF didn't open the floodgate of freedom for Ronaldo.

 

[ghagua]

Loved Ruud, but if Fergie thought we would be better off without Ruud, then who can argue against it. It proved to be a very good move as Ronaldo went on to become one of the best players in the world with us. There some issues between Ruud and Ronaldo, who's to say to Ronaldo would not have moved if Ruud was still here.

 

[Mike09]

Smith lead the line against Roma in the 7-1 @Mike09, that was my point.

Shitty fecked Alan Smith and we could still play like that because having an ever-maturing Rooney, Ronaldo and a midfield of Scholes and Carrick (rather than Fletcher/Smith which Ruud had to deal with), well... it helps.

Smith was our worst player in that game. He scored but he contributed nothing else. Lingard is still better off ball movement than Smith Vs Roma.

Basically if we sums up the players in That season was all about Saha, Rooney, Ronaldo, Giggs, Scholes, Carrick and our solid defense.

I don't remember Fletcher did something much. But still ok.
And Park was out for long period due to injuries.

Smith and Larsson didn't do much. Well Larsson was only on loan for 3 months if I remember.

Ole did and contributed better than both Smith and Larsson in that season. I don't think Smith deserves to be mentioned at all.

 

[pacifictheme]

We would have been just as good, if not even better if Ruud stayed on for a few more seasons.

There's no proof to suggest otherwise.

There is no proof to suggest we would have been as good with him you mean?!

The proof that we were better without is there for all to see. Because it happened.

I think you may be confused...

For what its worth i always thought we were too one dimensional with rvn. Plus, didn't he fall out with fergie and get accused of bullying ronaldo?

 

[Dance If You Wanna Dance]

It wasn't about other players being slower. Van Nistelrooy's mobility deteriorated or he became lazy and was less inclined to make the same runs he had previously. The movement/mobility by the other forwards helped to create space and improve the style/tempo of football.

 

[Tarrou]

I don't think it's a myth. He was the focal point of our attack but we were forced to change style after he left and improved as a unit. It's true that a lot of other factors played their part though, such as the progression of Ronaldo & Rooney. The Chelsea game was like a microcosm of that whole season, but of course it remains to be seen if we can continue to be better for longer periods without Ibra.

 

[R.E.D.]

When he left Fergie built the team around Rooney and Ronaldo and their strengths. If Ruud had stayed then we had to play based on his strength, that means more playing wide and more crosses and We didn`t have wingers who were more suited to that system like Beckham. You can`t say that because Smith and Larson (who actually played very small parts of the season) played and it looked the same it would have been the same with Ruud, because with them the team was still about Rooney and Ronaldo and everybody else had to play for them, but with Ruud being the bigger player at the time it would be about him and how everybody had to play for him.

If Ruud had stayed maybe we could have a great team too but definitely it wouldn`t be a fast counter attacking team like the team we actually had in those years

 

[Nighteyes]

I can only assume people didn't watch the 05/06 or don't remember it. People demanding proof should probably go back and rewatch our games after the cup final that season. The lineups in the OP are bs and doesn't tell the whole story. RVN was sidelined for most of the 2nd half of the season (after the league cup final) and the progression from RVN to Saha started then and not just the following season.

While the results were still patchy, the football we played with Saha was so much better. In fact, our finish to the season is what allowed some of us to go into the new season with a little optimism.

This is not to say RVN was single handedly holding us back. The progression of Rooney and Ronaldo into brilliant players as well as the signing of Carrick played their part.

 

[red thru&thru]

I can only assume people didn't watch the 05/06 or don't remember it. People demanding proof should probably go back and rewatch our games after the cup final that season. The lineups in the OP are bs and doesn't tell the whole story. RVN was sidelined for most of the 2nd half of the season (after the league cup final) and the progression from RVN to Saha started then and not just the following season.

While the results were still patchy, the football we played with Saha was so much better. In fact, our finish to the season is what allowed some of us to go into the new season with a little optimism.

This is not to say RVN was single handedly holding us back. The progression of Rooney and Ronaldo into brilliant players as well as the signing of Carrick played their part.

Great post.

People are asking for proof...what did United win in the time RVN was here for the 5 years?

1 PL
1 FA Cup
1 League Cup
1 Charity Sheild.

Now look at what United won, for 5 years (time frame he was at United), after he left.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Something that is not in question, but surely more down to shedding the Quinton Fortune, Liam Miller, O'Shea, Smith, Silvestre years and moving into prime Rooney & Ronaldo, buying Carrick, Tevez, Vidic, Evra, Nani etc etc...

Of course but ditching Rudd meant that we could play a fluid and dynamic front three like Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo.

 

[beergod]

I can only assume people didn't watch the 05/06 or don't remember it. People demanding proof should probably go back and rewatch our games after the cup final that season. The lineups in the OP are bs and doesn't tell the whole story. RVN was sidelined for most of the 2nd half of the season (after the league cup final) and the progression from RVN to Saha started then and not just the following season.

While the results were still patchy, the football we played with Saha was so much better. In fact, our finish to the season is what allowed some of us to go into the new season with a little optimism.

This is not to say RVN was single handedly holding us back. The progression of Rooney and Ronaldo into brilliant players as well as the signing of Carrick played their part.

+1. Scholes was essentially gone for this entire period during his eye ailment and the difference between RVN and Saha upfront was obvious to anyone watching. A lot of the foundations for the good football played in 06/07 were laid during that post league cup final period with Giggs/O'Shea as our primary CMs. Fulham had the misfortune of opening the season against us after Carrick was signed and Scholes returned and they couldn't get anywhere near us.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I could be talking out of my arse but imo we wouldn't have won the CL with Ruud in the team, great as he was.

His inability/refusal to run the channel and work hard defensively up front made us all too often vulnerable in Europe during those days.

 

[Nighteyes]

Fulham had the misfortune of opening the season against us after Carrick was signed and Scholes returned and they couldn't get anywhere near us.

The reason why 06/07 is probably my favourite United season. The negativity surrounding the club was at its peak. Poor results, RVN leaving, relying on a crocked Saha, only one signing in the summer, ridiculed for spending so much on Carrick, the whole Rooney Ronaldo world cup hand bags and competing with the all conquering Chelsea side.

We then come out for the opening game of the season and tear Fulham a new one with Saha, Giggs, Rooney and Ronaldo

 

[crossy1686]

Didn't Fergie say that RVN left because he wasn't prepared t wait for Rooney and Ronaldo to fulfil their potential? Or was that Keane? Didn't he also have a bust up with Ronaldo (that left Ronaldo in tears) during his last training session because he didn't cross the ball?

Either way, we relied on him heavily and when he left we were in transition for a couple of years. I wouldn't say him leaving made our team better but it forced Fergie to rebuild the team and move towards a more modern setup.

 

[rollingstoned1]

IT wasn't a myth and it's only a lot of bench pressing to try to prove that the 2006 team would have been as good with RVN in it when even in the previous season we looked a lot better and cut down Chelsea's 18 point lead only after he picked up his injury and was out for quite a while and also didn't start the Carling Cup final. His attitude also wasn't great by the end of his time here.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

The reason why 06/07 is probably my favourite United season. The negativity surrounding the club was at its peak. Poor results, RVN leaving, relying on a crocked Saha, only one signing in the summer, ridiculed for spending so much on Carrick, the whole Rooney Ronaldo world cup hand bags and competing with the all conquering Chelsea side.

We then come out for the opening game of the season and tear Fulham a new one with Saha, Giggs, Rooney and Ronaldo

This. I remember The Guardian tipped us at 6th before the season, with the caption "where are the goals going to come from?"

 

[MILLHILLMANC]

Under Carlos Q we played a team that revolved around RVN so he scored lots of goals but the football for the most part was tumescent and the worse played for me in the Fergie years.

He played more of a 451 or 4231 based around a prolific centre forward.......didn't work......

 

[Red Ryan]

Didn't Ruud and Ronaldo have a massive bust-up with Ruud claiming Ronaldo was getting special treatment? From the snippets I have heard, Ruud was a massively disruptive presence in the squad during his last year. In many ways his situation is similar to Alan Shearer joining Newcastle, they were actually better before he joined. As incredible as a goal scoring presence both were, it meant the team was built to suit them rather than they were building their game around the team.

 

[kps88]

No myth. Like Akash said Ruud was on his way out the previous season anyway. Abused SAF and started sulking after he was left out of the league cup final and clashed with Ronaldo and Queiroz. He didn't have the patience to see Rooney and Ronaldo develop and responded terribly to competition for his place in the team. He wanted to leave, so no question his performance levels would have been effected by that.

 

[beergod]

This. I remember The Guardian tipped us at 6th before the season, with the caption "where are the goals going to come from?"

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/aug/13/sport.comment

I forgot how funny some of the other predictions were from that one.

 

[Tarrou]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/aug/13/sport.comment

I forgot how funny some of the other predictions were from that one.

4 Spurs New, improved lasagne recipe.

 

[montpelier]

1 - Rooney, Ruud, Ronaldo - bit of 3 into 2 won't go about it, esp RVN & Ronaldo where it ends up Rooney +1 up the top

2 - when did Keane leave? still coming to terms with that - I mean, Leeds bellend Alan Smith into MF was never the answer was it?

3 - Saha done good when he was fit

4 - MF evolved into Carrick, deeper Scholes, Fletch, Giggs & Anderson !!!! isn't it?

 

[finneh]

Agree with @Regulus Arcturus Black.

The significant factors in us improving were the significant improvement of our defence with Evra, Vidic & Van Der Saar, the natural progression of a player destined to be one of the best players ever & the decline of the great Arsenal and Chelsea teams.

People talk about the attack but fail to mention that the competition at the top of the Premier League was insane at that time. We were competing against Arsenal's best ever team (01 - 04) and Chelsea's best ever team (04 - 06); both of which were among the top 3 or 4 PL sides ever.

Apart from our '99 and '08 teams I'm not sure any of our sides since the PL began would have stopped Chelsea and Arsenal winning 2 titles each during that time.

The other main factor was our defence. For the 3 seasons 01 - 04 we conceded an average of 38 PL goals. For the next 3 seasons we conceded an average of 29 goals. This improvement continued with us conceding only 22 goals 07/08 and 24 goals 08/09.

This is somewhat obvious when you think that when Ruud arrived we had a back 4 of Barthez, Silvestre, Blanc, Neville & Johnson. That defence improved swapping Barthez for Howard and Blanc for a young Ferdinand (and later Silvestre for O'Shea), but it wasn't until Ruud left that the best ever Premier League back 5 of Van Der Saar, Evra, Vidic, Ferdinand & Neville came together which was a key reason for our later success. Add Ronaldo naturally maturing at the same time and we were playing on easy mode.

Were we amazing during that time? Of course not. Has it became an accepted myth due to the awful timing of his career at United that it was partly because of Van Nistelrooy? Absolutely.

Also anyone mentioning Saha as anything but a tiny footnote in the history if United is being disingenuous. He simply didn't play enough to be a factor.

TL;DR If you put Ruud Van Nistelrooy in a team with a back 5 of VDS-Evra-Vidic-Ferdiand-Neville, with a 2006 onward Ronaldo; but without Arsenal/Chelsea's best ever teams... You'd win everything there is to win.

 

[montpelier]

This was the step-overs problem was it not, basically.

Ruud - 1 or 2 stepovers, go past your man, serve it in for me, I score, life is great

Ronaldo - mimimum of half a dozen stepovers, can I score or at least get a shot off if I throw another couple in, not my problem you've made half a dozen stop-start runs while I've been faffing about, here's your cross...

 

[Moiraine]

Always gets repeated, never considers the other factors like Ronaldo's improvement into one of the World's greatest players and the FIVE others strengthened positions from the previous season.

It's frustrating to read, RVN was a great player for us, and would have been a sensation himself in 2006-07 had he stayed and played with that much improved team. Look at the two teams based on number of appearances from those two seasons, is one not just "slightly" better than the other?

Still not 100% convinced? Well Saha played only 18 league games, and think back to our most incredible performance that following season, the 7-1 versus Roma and remember that Alan Smith lead the line that night.

I'll concede that RVN leaving left a void that Ronaldo filled, but no-one will convince me that Ronaldo wasn't turning into one the greats with or without RVN.

The truth is that Manchester United were struggling in front of the goal in the last 2-3 seasons of Van Nistelrooy. His presence as the main striker in the final 11 was blocking the development of Rooney and Ronaldo. Once SAF Started giving opportunities to Saha who was quicker, more pacey compared to Nistelrooy, United became a different animal, a lethal counter attacking and goal scoring team.

United scored a total of 64 and 58 goals in the entire premier league seasons of 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. Once Nistelrooy was gone, United scored 83 and 80 goals in the next two seasons. It gave us lightening counter attack and a breathtaking display of attacking football.

This Alan Smith argument leading the line in 7-1 win vs Roma doesn't make any sense. United last away European win with Nistelrooy was against Panathinaikos and Rangers in November 2003. Then they had to wait for 3 years against Benfica in September 2006 to for their next European away victory, and the winner was scored on counter attack (Guess by who ? as Nistelrooy was gone). It is a proven fact with all the statistics that Nistelrooy leaving United was a blessing in disguise. SAF, as ever, realized that in order to be successful in Europe again, he had to change United. He did it successfully and the result was a free-flowing and fearsome Manchester United. As a result, 3 Premier league titles in a row and 3 Champions League finals in 4 years followed.

I am fine with the affection people have for certain heroes and they have a big part in United's history. But to justify that he would still be a pivotal part in the following seasons after 10-11 years is not fair. United under the greatest manager in the world realized a inevitable change and moved on.

 

[Wumminator]

Not a myth at all.

We played better football up front when he was gone. Great player, doesn't mean that you can't improve when a great player leaves

 

[anant]

Easily the best goalscorer I've ever seen, not just for us but possibly among all the players. A real shame that he won so little for us and that is primarily due to the fact that our defence was shit in his first few years and then Chelsea came up who were ready to spend money no other team was.

 

[redspoony]

With Ruud, as brilliant a striker as he was, we played for him. He was a penalty box striker (although his build up play was very good) and that was where we looked for him.

When he left we played quicker football and that was a huge part of what won us the league.

I have absolutely no doubt that Ronaldo would have developed as we have seen with or without Ruud, but when Ruud left, other players stepped up and we became a better and more dynamic attacking unit.

 

[buckooo1978]

The truth is that Manchester United were struggling in front of the goal in the last 2-3 seasons of Van Nistelrooy. His presence as the main striker in the final 11 was blocking the development of Rooney and Ronaldo. Once SAF Started giving opportunities to Saha who was quicker, more pacey compared to Nistelrooy, United became a different animal, a lethal counter attacking and goal scoring team.

United scored a total of 64 and 58 goals in the entire premier league seasons of 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. Once Nistelrooy was gone, United scored 83 and 80 goals in the next two seasons. It gave us lightening counter attack and a breathtaking display of attacking football.

This Alan Smith argument leading the line in 7-1 win vs Roma doesn't make any sense. United last away European win with Nistelrooy was against Panathinaikos and Rangers in November 2003. Then they had to wait for 3 years against Benfica in September 2006 to for their next European away victory, and the winner was scored on counter attack (Guess by who ? as Nistelrooy was gone). It is a proven fact with all the statistics that Nistelrooy leaving United was a blessing in disguise. SAF, as ever, realized that in order to be successful in Europe again, he had to change United. He did it successfully and the result was a free-flowing and fearsome Manchester United. As a result, 3 Premier league titles in a row and 3 Champions League finals in 4 years followed.

I am fine with the affection people have for certain heroes and they have a big part in United's history. But to justify that he would still be a pivotal part in the following seasons after 10-11 years is not fair. United under the greatest manager in the world realized a inevitable change and moved on.

Superb post

Also add the mobility and intelligence of Henrik Larrson to Saha, Rooney and Ronaldo

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Agree with @Regulus Arcturus Black.

The significant factors in us improving were the significant improvement of our defence with Evra, Vidic & Van Der Saar, the natural progression of a player destined to be one of the best players ever & the decline of the great Arsenal and Chelsea teams.

People talk about the attack but fail to mention that the competition at the top of the Premier League was insane at that time. We were competing against Arsenal's best ever team (01 - 04) and Chelsea's best ever team (04 - 06); both of which were among the top 3 or 4 PL sides ever.

Apart from our '99 and '08 teams I'm not sure any of our sides since the PL began would have stopped Chelsea and Arsenal winning 2 titles each during that time.

The other main factor was our defence. For the 3 seasons 01 - 04 we conceded an average of 38 PL goals. For the next 3 seasons we conceded an average of 29 goals. This improvement continued with us conceding only 22 goals 07/08 and 24 goals 08/09.

This is somewhat obvious when you think that when Ruud arrived we had a back 4 of Barthez, Silvestre, Blanc, Neville & Johnson. That defence improved swapping Barthez for Howard and Blanc for a young Ferdinand (and later Silvestre for O'Shea), but it wasn't until Ruud left that the best ever Premier League back 5 of Van Der Saar, Evra, Vidic, Ferdinand & Neville came together which was a key reason for our later success. Add Ronaldo naturally maturing at the same time and we were playing on easy mode.

Were we amazing during that time? Of course not. Has it became an accepted myth due to the awful timing of his career at United that it was partly because of Van Nistelrooy? Absolutely.

Also anyone mentioning Saha as anything but a tiny footnote in the history if United is being disingenuous. He simply didn't play enough to be a factor.

TL;DR If you put Ruud Van Nistelrooy in a team with a back 5 of VDS-Evra-Vidic-Ferdiand-Neville, with a 2006 onward Ronaldo; but without Arsenal/Chelsea's best ever teams... You'd win everything there is to win.

Great post.

Sadly as you can see in this thread, people don't want to look at the vast improvement in the other areas of the team, they just want a simplistic view that somehow our best number 9 since Law was the problem.

Our team, as shown on the original images was absolutely miles better in several positions.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There were obviously loads of factors that improved us in the seasons after Ruud left which have nothing to do with his absence. Of course, this doesn't mean our attack didn't function better without him as a target man. Personally, I think it did.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Not a myth at all.

We played better football up front when he was gone. Great player, doesn't mean that you can't improve when a great player leaves

So the other factors mentioned in the OP, like the return of Scholes, the purchases of Vidic, Evra & Carrick, the continuing improvement of Ronaldo... they were what? Small insignificent factors in us playing better football?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

There were obviously loads of factors that improved us in the seasons after Ruud left which have nothing to do with his absence. Of course, this doesn't mean our attack didn't function better without him as a target man. Personally, I think it did.

And there's definitely an argument for that, the frustrating part it the myth that our improvement was mainly down to ditching Ruud.

 

[Dobbs]

I'll concede that RVN leaving left a void that Ronaldo filled, but no-one will convince me that Ronaldo wasn't turning into one the greats with or without RVN.

Has anybody said that?

The idea that we improved when RvN left isn't based on it allowing Ronaldo to flourish. It's because Ruud had become quite static at this point, it didn't the suit the football we went on to play.