United...1990s Liverpool re-enacted?

PickledRed

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
5,542
Supports
Liverpool
I have written this, not to antagonise or provoke, but as something that I think carries more than a degree of truth…

Since SAF left United in 2013 I have considered it a formality for United to return to winning ways sooner rather than later – by winning ways I mean challenging for league titles in the manner they have become used to. While comparisons with Liverpool’s demise have been uttered, the conventional wisdom has been that the same thing won’t happen as United’s financial infrastructure will mean that success will be far easier to come by compared to a Liverpool that totally lost their way at the end of Dalglish’s reign in 1991. However, there are striking similarities, albeit in a very different era.

End of an era – end of a philosophy:

Liverpool’s long run of success was built on the bootroom, which transcended any individual and allowed new managers to be appointed from within the club and sustain success. Continuity and fluid transition from one man to the next led to success. Keep it ‘in-house’ was the name of the game. The spell was broken the moment the internal candidates ran out. Souness arrived and engaged in a destructive transfer policy that saw a complete lowering of standards: Dicks, Stewart, Tanner, Clough and Ruddock being prime examples. Aging legends were being replaced by average cloggers. The era of domination was over…

United’s success was built differently but with similar results. Continuity came through the vision and brilliance of one man – SAF’s ability to build, refresh and renew was his great talent. Create successful teams over and over again. He’d use a variety of sidekicks but he was the constant. His drive to succeed was worth tons of points every season. If he was knocked back one season he’d build again and prove doubters wrong. It was an unerring era of supreme dominance. But like Liverpool, the spell has been broken. In 2013 SAF left and a new regime stepped in, dismantling the successful apparatus that had led to a generation of brilliance. Moyes brought his own men and ideas to the table and mediocrity reigned. United became mortal – late winners stopped coming, ‘never say die’ was no longer a mission statement, Old Trafford stopped being a fortress. The era of domination was over…

But United are still winning stuff:

Yes, they are and they remain extremely relevant. Despite United’s disappointing league position last week’s Manchester Derby felt as important as ever. It was a crunch game. No doubt, United are still box office. But so were Liverpool; so ARE Liverpool. Despite Liverpool’s regular disappointments over the past 20 odd years, they remain very relevant (despite what certain rivals like to suggest). I read recently that MirrorSport’s daily chart has Liverpool and United as bankers in terms of guaranteeing traffic to their website. Like United in the years that have proceeded SAF’s departure, Liverpool won an FA Cup and League Cup within four years of Dalglish leaving…ring any bells? Soon, Liverpool became cup specialists in a league that became increasingly tough to compete in. Winning cups gives the veneer of success and keeps the wolf from the door, but it doesn’t really scratch that itch, does it?

United are in a much stronger position than ‘1991 Liverpool’:

United are dead rich and can blow nearly any team out of the water. In 1991, Liverpool couldn’t quite match United’s allure for top players and also didn’t have the equivalent youth system to prop themselves up to compete. But such comparisons are useless, today’s footballing reality isn’t the same. Yes United have huge funds, but is that still the game changer it was even 5 years ago. United find themselves as the richest club amongst a load of other really rich clubs. Squad building for the Premier League’s elite isn’t a problem – about 5 or 6 clubs now have huge funds to buy big. And even if United buy ‘biggest’, it’s not enough to stop rivals in their tracks.

My point is that, relatively speaking, United’s financial predominance isn’t enough in itself to achieve footballing dominance. It’s not the marginal gain it once was.

Money is, in fact, the problem

Financial might is so far removed from what really made United great that a preoccupation of big money signings is the very thing that’s holding them back. Compare transfer activity since SAF left to when he was in charge – it’s a totally different approach. Some United fans have become seduced into the idea that the chequebook will bail them out of the current stasis. This, despite the fact that SAF’s primary principals were never about splurging huge amounts on talent. He built TEAMS…expensive teams, but teams that had a collective endeavour and not side tracked by individual distractions (see selling of Beckham and Stam to observe how team trumped individual brilliance).

Back in the 90s, Liverpool were guilty of breaking transfer records to buy back their success. Saunders and Collymore both broke the British transfer record…that worked, didn’t it?

Lazy comparisons?

Yes, this whole piece could be regarded as shoe-horning in a load of convenient factors that link 1990s Liverpool to modern-day United. Fair cop…

…But the one factor I will keep coming back to is that of the ‘spell has been broken’. In 1991 Liverpool stopped doing the things that made them the best. In 2013 United stopped doing the things that made them the best.

The road back is an absolute quagmire.
 
Two more seasons without CL and I will agree hat we are the new Liverpool.
 
Good post.

'Marginal gain' is probably the best term for mega-bucks signings in today's market. Without the correct structure for those players to slot into, and in today's market where all global player options are now on the table , their worth (usually exaggerated where United, City and Chelsea are concerned) is not indicative of the actual percentage edge it may be expected to give the team, over other clubs buying cheaper, but possibly almost as effective, players. Tactics, training, nutrition may all contribute to balancing or even exceeding, mere transfer activity.

Interesting times and, with the money available to all PL clubs to compete for good players, one club domination could well be a thing of the past in the PL.
 
Unless it's more than two decades of it, we're good. with Mou at helm I don't think we'll not win anything. I'm glad we didn't go with Giggs; in crisis you look at someone with a proven track record.

Good read, that.
 
Squad building for the Premier League’s elite isn’t a problem – about 5 or 6 clubs now have huge funds to buy big. And even if United buy ‘biggest’, it’s not enough to stop rivals in their tracks.

My point is that, relatively speaking, United’s financial predominance isn’t enough in itself to achieve footballing dominance. It’s not the marginal gain it once was.
That's where you're wrong. Despite being in a shit position, we've managed to buy Mata (one of the best players in the PL for a number of years, 2 times Chelsea's POTY), Di Maria (undoubtedly world class the season before the transfer, MotM in the CL final), Falcao (a striker with a world-class reputation), Schweiny (still seen as one of the world's best midfielders, albeit injury prone), Ibra (no explanation needed), Pogba (the hottest prospect in Europe that summer, with Madrid and Barca also going after him), Micky (best player in BL a season before the transfer)...
Not all of them were successful, but some already are - Mata, Pogba. Ibra would've been if not for the injury, Micky shows a lot of promise...
We'll continue to buy high profile players and (especially with Mourinho's record), eventually we'll get it right.

Yes, Watford is able to decline a 30m offer for Troy Deeney, and the league is crazy inflated, but there are still only Chelsea and City who can realistically compete with United on a transfer market.
 
The one major difference between us now and Liverpool in the 90's? We have a World Class manager, Liverpool had shit managers.
 
That's where you're wrong. Despite being in a shit position, we've managed to buy Mata (one of the best players in the PL for a number of years, 2 times Chelsea's POTY), Di Maria (undoubtedly world class the season before the transfer, MotM in the CL final), Falcao (a striker with a world-class reputation), Schweiny (still seen as one of the world's best midfielders, albeit injury prone), Ibra (no explanation needed), Pogba (the hottest prospect in Europe that summer, with Madrid and Barca also going after him), Micky (best player in BL a season before the transfer)...
Not all of them were successful, but some already are - Mata, Pogba. Ibra would've been if not for the injury, Micky shows a lot of promise...
We'll continue to buy high profile players and (especially with Mourinho's record), eventually we'll get it right.

Yes, Watford is able to decline a 30m offer for Troy Deeney, and the league is crazy inflated, but there are still only Chelsea and City who can realistically compete with United on a transfer market.
Haven't you simply supported my case? Expensive buys but is it giving United an advantage over rivals? I didn't say United can't spend big, I'm suggesting it's not having the appreciable effect some think it has.
 
The one major difference between us now and Liverpool in the 90's? We have a World Class manager, Liverpool had shit managers.
But so do United's rivals now. So relatively speaking, it's still tough for a top manager to win leagues at United.
 
Haven't you simply supported my case? Expensive buys but is it giving United an advantage over rivals? I didn't say United can't spend big, I'm suggesting it's not having the appreciable effect some think it has.
Nope, because, as I said, in a long run buying better (e.g. more expensive, as it usually is) players will give you an advantage. We only started a couple of seasons ago, and got burned on Di Maria (lack of motivation), Falcao/Schweiny (injuries), but we already got relative success with Mata, Ibra, Pogba, Martial, Micky - from our high profile signings, who are only becoming better. Apart from Benjamin Button, but who knows with him.

Liverpool lost their appeal too early - because at the time no club had finances to support a prolonged unsuccessful run; nowadays we do.
 
No, United are much bigger than Liverpool were in the 90s.
We're more of Madrid mid to late 2000s. We'll buy star player after star player until we stumble upon the winning formula.
If we're Liverpool from the 90s then what are Liverpool now? Leeds?
 
Nope, because, as I said, in a long run buying better (e.g. more expensive, as it usually is) players will give you an advantage. We only started a couple of seasons ago, and got burned on Di Maria (lack of motivation), Falcao/Schweiny (injuries), but we already got relative success with Mata, Ibra, Pogba, Martial, Micky - from our high profile signings, who are only becoming better. Apart from Benjamin Button, but who knows with him.
In truth, that's speculative and supports the notion that there's a preoccupation with big spending rather than team building. In addition, is United's spending enough to distinguish themselves with other elite rivals? I suspect not.
 
Uniteds problem are nowhere near as bad as Pool post 1990 because:

Our biggest rivals aren't winning loads. If the United situation mirrored Liverpool post 1990 then the scousers would have won an FA Cup,League Cup, Europa league,a league title and then the league and cup double since Sir Alex retired. This was a major blow to Liverpool after all the work they done to ensure the rich got richer in football in the 70s and 80s-United where the biggest beneficiaries.

Plus their income streams got hit a lot in the early 90s. Fans stopped going to games at a time when matchday revenue was a bigger part of income revenue and their owners lost a lot of personal wealth when the national lottery came in.(They owned a pools company and the national lottery practically finished the pools off.).
 
In truth, that's speculative and supports the notion that there's a preoccupation with big spending rather than team building. In addition, is United's spending enough to distinguish themselves with other elite rivals? I suspect not.
Who is spending money? Us and City?
 
No, United are much bigger than Liverpool were in the 90s.
We're more of Madrid mid to late 2000s. We'll buy star player after star player until we stumble upon the winning formula.
If we're Liverpool from the 90s then what are Liverpool now? Leeds?
But Madrid were out on their own, relatively speaking. Right now, United are one of several clubs buying regularly in the £50m+ bracket. On that though, I agree to some extent in that there's a lack of transfer strategy.

Liverpool can be Leeds if it helps. Not really what the discussion is geared towards.
 
Who is spending money? Us and City?
Well Chelsea have been for a while. Plus, strong recruitment in the £20m-£40m bracket appears as useful as buying at the top table. Lazy example: Mané at £34m is having an impact that United would happily pay £60m+ for.

There's far less bang for your buck when shopping at the very top end, unless you nail a real stunner.
 
Most of the discussion points suggest we're not much like Liverpool in the 90s, and I agree.
 
It's a well-made argument, particularly regarding the comparative advantage of wealth in today's league. For United fans like me old enough to have witnessed Liverpool's fall from grace, the fear of becoming Liverpool post-Fergie has been the ghost at the feast over the last 7 years or so. I say 7 years deliberately as IMO the rot set in with Fergie's flawed attempts to regenerate the 2008 team (as it did in Dalglish's last years when he bought the likes of Carter and Speedie).

But there are two points of difference. Firstly, the club has resisted trying to recreate the past in the same way Liverpool reached for Evans and the boot room legacy after the Souness disaster - hiring Mourinho was a clear indication that United have no room for sentiment and will not be appointing the likes of Giggs anytime soon. Secondly, part of the reason Liverpool's title drought lasted so long was due to the genius up the road at Old Trafford. Benitez at least would have won a title if he was up against a less formidable rival. In the current environment, we are very unlikely to see someone in situ so long, let alone someone so dominant over his rivals. So, while I don't expect the days of 13 titles in 20 years to come back, I do think United will stay in the leading pack and will pick up a title or two in the next 10 years (along with Chelsea, City and possibly Spurs).
 

Truth be told being successful in spates is pretty much par for the course. Anyone who thinks winning 10 titles in 15 seasons or 13 titles in 21 seasons as Liverpool and United did in the 70's/80's and 90's to early 10's is possible again is naive in the extreme.

In any normal situation winning 2 or 3 titles in 10 years as City and Chelsea have done is very impressive. If United get to a stage where not only have we not won 2 or 3 titles in the last decade, but haven't won a single title in that period (or longer); that's when things can start being truly scrutinised or compared.

As it stands United have won 5 of the last 10 titles (4 of the last 10 if you include this season), which is more than any other team. Consequently it's far too early to make comparisons.

From a realistic standpoint can I see United going another 5-6 seasons without winning a title? Not really. However can I see a period where any team wins more than 50% of titles over a 10 season or more period? Again not really. United's biggest problem will be readjusting to the fact that winning a title every 3 or 4 seasons is a great achievement.
 
Last edited:
But Madrid were out on their own, relatively speaking. Right now, United are one of several clubs buying regularly in the £50m+ bracket. On that though, I agree to some extent in that there's a lack of transfer strategy.

Liverpool can be Leeds if it helps. Not really what the discussion is geared towards.
Who is spending in the 50m bracket? That's more than Liverpool / Arsenal and Spurs record transfer. Chelsea haven't spent that amount of money in a long while.
We went out and bought arguably the 3 best players from Italy, Germany and France while Arsenal can't keep Sanchez and Ozil due to their wage structre.
Klopp admitted they tried to sign players in January but couldn't get clubs to play ball. According to reports we're offering Monaco money they can't refuse for Mbappe while Atletico don't want to sell Griezmann but we're bypassing that by paying the buy out clause.
That's financial power. Not adding a few million to Mane or Mustafi's price tag for a transfer that should happen anyway.
 
Liverpool are no better off than they were at the start of the 90s right now which makes threads like this being posted by Liverpool fans even more bizarre.

Yesterday they were bragging about the net spend trophy today they are telling us what we already know; United would struggle after Sir Alex.

Id be interested to see if anyone genuinely believes United will go over 27 years (and counting) without a league title...
 
The one major difference between us now and Liverpool in the 90's? We have a World Class manager, Liverpool had shit managers.
Yeah it's an important point. Liverpool arguably had the talent to win a title during the mid-1990s, but perhaps lacked a bit of the backbone required to get over the line. I'm not sure if United face the same problem.
 
Nonsense you are comparing completely different eras and circumstances. It might sound trite but in this day and age money talks and united are simply too big to fail and will get back to winning ways sooner rather than later. It may not be the consistent league winning success of the Fergie era but neither will it be the complete wilderness barren years of modern Liverpool.
 
Mismanagement has been the biggest clause of our decline, and that's descended into a downward spiral. Moyes as Man Utd manager was singlehandedly the worst decision. I don't really hold it against Fergie, because firstly I have no right to, but also because I've always trusted his judgment, but the killer was the lack of a transitional plan for the club to move on after a manager who had done things in a certain way for over 2 decades. The team that won league in his final season did so by 11 points. Now while I agree that they were 'over-performing' due to the genius of Fergie, there's no way that wasn't a top 4 team at the least.

Messing up in that season caused us to panic, and this has been reflected in our transfer strategy until the arrival of Mourinho. A shotgun approach buying players who don't suit the style of system we want to play, trimming players who were potentially useful (Chicharito) and failing to bring the best out of the better players (Di Maria, Falcao).

I feel as if we're at a bit of a twilight zone at the moment. We're relevant and will remain "relevant", but we won't be progressing as a club if we carry on producing the results we currently are. Can we really call ourselves the 'biggest club in the world' when we can't even secure CL football? On the other hand, a huge revenue stream and a massive fan-base to match will keep United going. We can for now say the current situation is the result of a 'blip', from Moyes to Van Gaal but now having a top manager in Mourinho to restore the team to the top.

The difference between us and 1990's Liverpool is the money. Theoretically, having our money should allow you to do a rebuilding job at an accelerated rate. In addition it also gives you the opportunity to compete the best players available, offering the best wages and such, but also gives you cushioning for duds in all levels of purchases. Now looking at what United have done over the last few years, we've wasted a lot of money yes- but a lot of that can be put down to buying unsuitable players rather than poor ones. Some like Depay appears to have just been a poor investment as his demonstrated talent didn't match the reputation. However, someone like Di Maria would've potentially excelled for Mourinho but didn't under LVG. Jose has lamented the loss of players such as Di Maria, Chicharito and Welbeck. Since Jose has arrived, although we only have a small sample to look at- it already appears we are improving our transfer policy. 4 purchases were made this summer, and only Pogba probably hasn't matched the expectations of his price tag. But that doesn't mean he's been a poor signing, in fact quite the opposite. Perhaps Zlatan on a free compensates slightly. Bailly has been an absolute gem at £30m, which is the going rate for players these days. Micky has been par. Thus there's evidence to suggest United are slowly but surely beginning to pick up but not at the rate that was expected of us.

Purchases aren't everything, and indeed coaching and drilling players to form an effective unit takes precedence. I wrote a post in another thread where I felt various problems this season have hindered us in putting out a relatively consistent XI. I see this season as a season for Jose to lay the foundations. Next season will be the true barometer of where we are as a club. For now we should focus on securing CL, starting with an important game tonight.

Lazy comparison? No not really, but perhaps a bit premature. It is unlikely a team will come out and dominate the next 20 years like we did, and the huge profile of Utd gives us a buffer, so it is unlikely we will see a similar situation.
 
The biggest difference is managers. Firstly, Liverpool have had a lot of awful managers in their lean spell. We got our "Davie Moyes" moment out of the way early, and it's a mistake I doubt we'll repeat. Utd will be going for the world's best from now on I'd imagine.

Mainly though, unlike Liverpool during their long barren spell, we won't have the greatest manager in history managing our biggest rival for 20 years running.
 
Isn't this more a fantasy of what Liverpool fans hope is the future for United rather than a comparison?

The financial differences are stark, and despite what the OP claims, Sir Alex didn't mind spending when it was available. We broke English transfer records for both Veron and Rio, and Rooney was the most expensive teenager in English history. Being able to buy the best is not a deterrent to success, quite the opposite.
 
But so do United's rivals now. So relatively speaking, it's still tough for a top manager to win leagues at United.

Had Liverpool had a World Class manager in the 90's they'd at least have been left with a squad to build on a title challenge.

Whether Jose succeeds or not, he'll leave us with a squad with a winning mentality.
 
When Dalglish resigned in 1991, although we couldn't see it at the time, the success link was broken. He was the 4th consecutive Liverpool manager to put a league title in the trophy cabinet. The reason for our continued success was based on building a spirit & an identity within not just the team, but the club itself. When Kenny called it a day that identity & spirit was lost. Such a thing actually comes from within, but we thought we could buy it externally. If United want to get back to their title-winning days maybe they should learn from our mistakes. Mourinho might eventually buy them a league title. But then again he might not. However, I'm not sure he's the man who'll successful build new foundations built on identity & spirit.
 
It's strikingly similar except they hired hansen (our giggs equivalent) while we hire mourinho.

If liverpool somehow manages to land alex ferguson back then the rest would have been history.
 
When Dalglish resigned in 1991, although we couldn't see it at the time, the success link was broken. He was the 4th consecutive Liverpool manager to put a league title in the trophy cabinet. The reason for our continued success was based on building a spirit & an identity within not just the team, but the club itself. When Kenny called it a day that identity & spirit was lost. Such a thing actually comes from within, but we thought we could buy it externally. If United want to get back to their title-winning days maybe they should learn from our mistakes. Mourinho might eventually buy them a league title. But then again he might not. However, I'm not sure he's the man who'll successful build new foundations built on identity & spirit.

Spirit and identity are gained from actually winning trophies and being successful on the pitch.

If saf didnt managed to win stuff nobody would say we had united value and all those intangibles.

You can put a romantic spin on winning and call it any sort of identity but you can't put any positives in losing.
 
When Dalglish resigned in 1991, although we couldn't see it at the time, the success link was broken. He was the 4th consecutive Liverpool manager to put a league title in the trophy cabinet. The reason for our continued success was based on building a spirit & an identity within not just the team, but the club itself. When Kenny called it a day that identity & spirit was lost. Such a thing actually comes from within, but we thought we could buy it externally. If United want to get back to their title-winning days maybe they should learn from our mistakes. Mourinho might eventually buy them a league title. But then again he might not. However, I'm not sure he's the man who'll successful build new foundations built on identity & spirit.

Didn't you carry on the identity of Liverpool managers right up until Houllier? I mean Souness and Roy Evans were just as much associated with the club and its background long before they became Liverpool manager.
 
Well Chelsea have been for a while. Plus, strong recruitment in the £20m-£40m bracket appears as useful as buying at the top table. Lazy example: Mané at £34m is having an impact that United would happily pay £60m+ for.

There's far less bang for your buck when shopping at the very top end, unless you nail a real stunner.

You pick one out of how many?

Benteke £33m
Markovic £20m
Downing £25m
Allen £15m
Sakho £18m
Ballotelli £16m
Meireles £12m
Carroll £35m

There's £150m+ down the swanny in the last few seasons and thats just the £10m+ signings. You've had a tonne of £5m - £10m that have been a total waste too.