I enjoy reading your posts. Considered, logical, fair and with nothing but the very merest sprinkling of bias (equivalent to a pinch of salt). Unlike those who feel they need to defend the flag at all costs.
United...1990s Liverpool re-enacted?
- Thread starter PickledRed
- Start date
It's more to do with how we played & our philosophy. Souness tried to change that by moulding a side in his own hard-man imagine. Hence the signings players like Dicks & Ruddock. He tried to change too much, too soon. The appointment of Evans was obviously planned in trying to get us back on track by playing 'the Liverpool way', but the damage was already done.
you've missed ''...and we'd just got ourselves & everyone else lobbed out of European footy'' from the OP, innit?
Just to clarify, in writing this post I'm not trying to position Liverpool as being in a better place than United right now. Not sure why some have jumped on this thread to abuse modern day Liverpool.
I have a feeling this will go well.
I'd argue that spirit & identity are the pre-requisites for success. Conte has done it in his first season at Chelsea. It remains to be seen how long he'll sustain it, but he's done it none-the-less. Chelsea do have an identity playing under him. They also have a very strong spirit. Surely that's something you need first if you want to win top honours.
Many teams won shit, not many becomes tradition.
Twente, Leicester, blackburn, valencia once won the la liga, doesn't make them a united/barca/madrid.
You're where you are today, a great club with history not because of a catchy YAWN songs, not because of any other value you think you have, but becausr you win alot in the past. And yes winning it with boring back pass shit on a stick football still counts.
He is correct. United's wealth isn't enough to stop rivals in their tracks and create a football dominance. Both Di Maria and Mata were discarded by superior sides, as they went on to buy better players, hence we were getting their not wants. You can pretend all you want but Chelsea went on to become league winners and Real haven't looked back whilst Di Maria isn't tearing trees down. Jose preferred Oscar so Mata didn't get a kick. Di Maria was replaced by Kroos (better CM) and Rodriguez. Falcao was recovering from ACL and if anything, we were the stepping stone club they used to get him firing again. Schweiny was past it and Pep didn't want him. He is in USA now. Pogba is a significant signing and Zlatan too, however there are strikers all over who are scoring more league goals than a 35 year old (maybe 1 season left tops) so his signing isn't preventing any of our rivals from having better strikers. The fact that Juve have improved without Pogba, also supports his claim, that our finances are not a big gain for us. Miki has been outpeformed by very many players this season so again it supports his claim. If we signed Kroos, Neymar, Bale, Dybala, then we would be blowing our rivals out, but we aren't......
Seventeen years to early.
Some fair points. I do think what might help United in comparison to Liverpool is that there's not really been a singularly dominant PL side in recent years like there was in the 90s, with various clubs having exchanged title wins in recent years, and others coming close to doing so.
But it does feel like we've seen a few false dawns in recent years. Mourinho's offered an improvement thus far but 4th back in, say, 2013 would've been seen as an immense disappointment; if he kicks on from that (if he gets it) and brings us a league title then fair enough, but if he fails to do so then it'd suggest a similarity to Liverpool in the 90s or Arsenal now; where any expectation for dominance has faded into satisfaction at getting top four and a trophy, with the belief we'll get back to the top next year. Granted, again, I think we've got good reason to believe we'll kick on and compete for the title next season, but it does feel like every season since Moyes' departure has been one where we've kind of assumed we'd improve and get back to title winning ways, as opposed to just hoping we will.
But it does feel like we've seen a few false dawns in recent years. Mourinho's offered an improvement thus far but 4th back in, say, 2013 would've been seen as an immense disappointment; if he kicks on from that (if he gets it) and brings us a league title then fair enough, but if he fails to do so then it'd suggest a similarity to Liverpool in the 90s or Arsenal now; where any expectation for dominance has faded into satisfaction at getting top four and a trophy, with the belief we'll get back to the top next year. Granted, again, I think we've got good reason to believe we'll kick on and compete for the title next season, but it does feel like every season since Moyes' departure has been one where we've kind of assumed we'd improve and get back to title winning ways, as opposed to just hoping we will.
You've only won 17 out of 34 league games this season.
Well no. In the 1990s Liverpool were coming off a successful period. That's the comparison. Its not are we like Liverpool now. Its are we like Liverpool were in the 1990s.
We probably are a bit.
I think we would have won the title by now if we had replaced Ferguson with Mourinho in 2013 and not had Moyes/Vangle come here
It was a big mistake
It was a big mistake
He said "He'll leave us with". Unless Jose leaves at the end of this season, it's a still a work in progress. Despite the inadequate league form, there are some early promising signs including the League cup. There is also the possibility of the Europa League. Also a 'winning mentality' does not always translate to winning 'performances'. Naturally mentality usually does breed performances, but the former does not equal the latter. His point should be judged when Jose actually leaves.
Interesting points. Many fans aren't delighted at the thought of just throwing money at superstars and mercenaries thinking we will become Real Madrid as it has proved disastrous so far. Di Maria was absurdly over priced, as is Pogba, Fellaini. Martial is early days but teams have bought more effective players for less yet I still have hope he may become a top dangerman. Giving Bastian and Rooney 500k per week between them is stupid
Swap Liverpool with Chelsea and Man City. Both have 2 league titles (soon) and some cups. The rivals have just changed. They can both spend as much as us also
Arsenal Chelsea and City have spent over 100m net. that suggests they have enough to spend 50m on someone. A while back Arsenal spent over 40 on Ozil. Our financial power allowed Kante to still reject us and now on course for a league title. players like Kane and Alli are signing new contracts despite our riches. Arsenal have difficulty as they are silly with wages and are going backwards. I wouldn't like to exaggerate our financial power
Less speculative than what you suggest - if we look at football history, in 90% money equals success. Just not immediately, and there were examples of clubs running out of money before returning to the winning ways. United is a financial behemoth and can afford half a decade of heavy spending without outstanding success.
Liverpool (and it's not on Liverpool, more on the 90's football) couldn't - just because there were generally less money in football in the 90's.
Not to be that guy but the days following SAF retirement I said this to my friends.
Something along the lines of: "I'm sure we'll be OK but there is a risk we might become Liverpool!"
Something along the lines of: "I'm sure we'll be OK but there is a risk we might become Liverpool!"
Is Jose not overseeing our 35th game of have I missed the point of your post?
The problem is though, every time a club gets taken over by a financial 'behemoth' your finances become diluted in the grand scheme of things. That's another club in the market for the top players. So yeah money is a big advantage, but unfortunately it won't guarantee you players will have a stronger preference for Manchester than Madrid, Barcelona, or even Paris.
It was a different situation for Liverpool in the 90s in lots of ways. Football was changing, and Man Utd were right at the front of growing their club right at the exact moment to take advantage of the oncoming English shift to TV money, a move that would lead everyone else down the same road. They also moved to the PLC model quite quickly, got the stadium massively improved and enlarged, took colossal steps into commercialisation of themselves as a brand that again forced other clubs to do the same to compete. And obviously they had in place the right guy at the top who was changing the football part of the club at the perfect time to take advantage of the circumstances. Liverpool on the other hand clung onto the past and it hamstrung them massively as other clubs overtook them, and it's only recently that Anfield has been developed at all, but they won't get back those previous 20 years of basically being second rung in comparison. Man Utd, thanks to that previous work, are still in a great position to compete at the top level with the other superclubs of Europe. They still have the financial power, the stadium, the support, the pedigree, that will last for a good few years yet unless they really start to plummet.
I think one of the things going in our favour compared to liverpool in the 90s, is that nobody is capitalizing on our decline. It's been 4 years since Fergie retired, and the league's a mess. We're probably still the 2nd most successful club in that time period in terms of trophies.
If there was a genuine threat of another dynasty, then we'd have to worry. But everyone is bunched up together, with no real pace setter. It's impossible for us to really fall behind too far. It's like a distance race, you always have a chance as long as everyone is together. Us in the 90s were a pace setter, nobody else could keep up with and Liverpool kept falling further behind us, and even those trying to keep up with us.
If there was a genuine threat of another dynasty, then we'd have to worry. But everyone is bunched up together, with no real pace setter. It's impossible for us to really fall behind too far. It's like a distance race, you always have a chance as long as everyone is together. Us in the 90s were a pace setter, nobody else could keep up with and Liverpool kept falling further behind us, and even those trying to keep up with us.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time there & just said Alex Ferguson is the reason for your position of financial strength. Because without him, & the success he brought to the club, it wouldn't have mattered one jot how Manchester United had structured themselves in the early 90's. Expanding OT, the money generated from advertising, sponsorships etc are all linked to success on the pitch. Which in turn were all linked to one man.
Not sure what the phrase "a club gets taken over by a financial behemoth" means. It's not like we're Chelsea or City who suddenly got lots of outsider's money. United IS that behemoth.
Plus, we don't need to outbid Madrid or Barcelona (even though we did it with Pogba). To return to our level, first and foremost, we need to be competitive in the league - and our blend of money and reputation allows us to buy players overpowering Chelsea and City (not every time, obviously, but often enough). And we're one of the first clubs that the players outside of the Spain's big two and Bayern are willing to go - and there aren't enough places at those 3 clubs to keep every world class player in their squads.
Utd have none of 1985 (Heysel, Euro ban), 1989 (Hillsborough), 1990/92 (changes to established order from Gazzamania-Premier League) to contend with. So it should be a piece of piss getting back on the perch, theoretically.
Unfortunately it's only allowed to put 11 blokes (& Howard Webb of course if you're lucky) on the park & the most money doesn't provide all the things required to either acquire the best players (for your team) or optimize their performance.
Ought to give them, you or us, some kind of decent chance once in a while / more often though.
edit - the Adrian Tempany book is worth a look at how 'modern' footy was brought about - you do't have to agree with all of it (politics or football) but it's a very good read
Unfortunately it's only allowed to put 11 blokes (& Howard Webb of course if you're lucky) on the park & the most money doesn't provide all the things required to either acquire the best players (for your team) or optimize their performance.
Ought to give them, you or us, some kind of decent chance once in a while / more often though.
edit - the Adrian Tempany book is worth a look at how 'modern' footy was brought about - you do't have to agree with all of it (politics or football) but it's a very good read
Last edited:
Brilliant points these, the highlighted ones. We have become too desperate for a player with great individual brilliance. Ever since the sale of Ronaldo and the demise of Rooney our fans have been desperate for someone who can lift them off their feet, like these 2 could in days gone by. We have forgotten SAF's biggest lesson, that you don't need such players to be a brilliant team. Our treble winning team had no such flashy player, except perhaps from Giggs but we were still the best team in the world.
People keep harping on things like the game has changed since then and blah blah. No it hasn't. Its the attitude of the fans and the management that has changed. SAF would never have been so desperate to spend nearly 40 million on Mata (who didn't fit our team), 60 million on Di Maria (who didn't want to be here) or 85 million on Griezmann (who again we don't know where will he fit). He would have signed those players who best suited the system, and his systems never relied on individual brilliance, they relied on teamwork and hard work. Under SAF whenever we signed a player we always knew where he would play. Nowadays we keep discussing which is the best position of our newest signing or how best to fit him in our system. (eg- Pogba, Mkhi).
We are losing that special thing that made so difference from the rest and I sincerely hope that Manchester United doesn't lose its true essence in this desperate rush to sign the next brilliant player.
Don't kid yourself that we are special and have our own unique way of doing things that makes us better than everyone. Supporters of all clubs think that way.
That special thing that made us so different from the rest was our manager. He isn't coming back so we have to accept that we are fighting on the same playing field as everyone else now. Jose is building a team, he will have plans for everyone he brings in, but they obviously won't come to full fruition until he has everyone he thinks we need.
But they haven't bought that 50m player. Its ok to buy a few 35m odd (modern football huh) players but that 50m player is a different breed. They are the players that can choose which top club to go to and with that choice comes the wages associated with such a transfer. Something these clubs will not break.
50m pounds is a huge amount of money on the continent ... Brexit aside.. And these clubs cannot attract that calibre of player.
Either they have the money but can't attract the player or they can't afford players at that level. Either way it's a non factor.
Nah.
The problem as I see it with the OP post is the sheer number of clubs who have done similarly to ourselves and yet achieved major success.
Bayern spend lots of money.
Real Madrid spend lots of money.
There's an element of truth in that Fergusons sides weren't great because of their ability but the mentality he instilled in them, but he still spent heavily when he wanted to. Ferdinand and Rooney were not exactly considered bargains at the time, nor Keane or Andy Cole.
I'd argue the managerial choices Liverpool made had more bearing on their failures than any reliance on the transfer market.
Both clubs have always had money and have always brought players in for huge sums.
We needed to choose the right manager more than anything and we got it wrong.
Bayern spend lots of money.
Real Madrid spend lots of money.
There's an element of truth in that Fergusons sides weren't great because of their ability but the mentality he instilled in them, but he still spent heavily when he wanted to. Ferdinand and Rooney were not exactly considered bargains at the time, nor Keane or Andy Cole.
I'd argue the managerial choices Liverpool made had more bearing on their failures than any reliance on the transfer market.
Both clubs have always had money and have always brought players in for huge sums.
We needed to choose the right manager more than anything and we got it wrong.
Interesting OP. Most valid point was the end of era portion. It wasn't just an end of an era, but a gigantic change of guard when you add the loss of Gill at the same time. Woody has done great business, bringing in a boatload of money, but he was a babe in the woods when it came to transfers, and he was Laurel to Moyes' Hardy, hampering & destroying our initial post-SAF recruitment drives. I think SAF expected Moyes to continue what he started & left for his successor, but Moyes had a need to go his own way and expected to do fine based on having better players available to him than at Everton.
I don't expect United to continue down Liverpool's path, though. The dynamic is totally different and I'd think United would have to be relegated to go down that path. Heck, Chelsea went partially down that path last season but easily rebounded. Money does that for you.
I don't expect United to continue down Liverpool's path, though. The dynamic is totally different and I'd think United would have to be relegated to go down that path. Heck, Chelsea went partially down that path last season but easily rebounded. Money does that for you.
We have only bought Di Maria and Pogba. Chelsea have bought Torres for 50mill yonkers ago when it was a lot. City have done it on just British players. At least 3 teams in our league alone can. We aren't shopping in a different store
I have said it's only Utd and City who have bought players at that level. Roman has tightened up the purse strings for a long time now,, it's been one of the criticisms that their fans have of him in recent years.
It's simple to look at, our transfer targers seem to be of the Griezmann and Mbappe variety while Spurs and Arsenal are linked with who?
The money ties into everything about the club. Theres a lot that goes into it.
Exactly.
If Mourinho leaves in 3 years time and we are still in a similar shape I will start to worry. It's way to early to tell atm which way we will go.
Appointing Moyes didnt help though. Set us back a year and led to the break up of a group of winners too early rather than phasing them out like a stronger manager would of.
Appointing Moyes didnt help though. Set us back a year and led to the break up of a group of winners too early rather than phasing them out like a stronger manager would of.
Think he's talking about Silverwear
Don't talk to Spurs fans about silverware - touchy subject.