Just how good were / are Utd really?

[The Running Man]

Just good enough was.my initial thought.

looking at the last 15 years or so we have won countless trophies . more sucess domestically than in European terms. Why is this?

If i isolate our performances in Europe first - 2x cl cup wins. 2x final losses.

yet neither of the finals we won did we win in style. if you look at 1999 we were quite lucky. out played in the final. bayern winning until the last few mins, hit the post /bar. we hung in there and were ultimately quite lucky in out victory. You couldn't begrudge a bayern player or fan for thinking they should have won.

infact over that seasons actual cl campaign we won only 5 matches out of 11 games and 2 of those wins were the whipping boys of the group. brondby. There were of course some thrilling performances but we never convincingly beat a top side. juve were already on a downward turn and where in the previous years they had been dominating domestically and un European terms.

of course we have a lot of failure in between then get to the cl final vs chelsea and this again was not a dominant win. We drew and then won due to a bad mistake from terry.

We would then be shown how to dominate an opponent in the next final by barca. and then again by barca.

of course that doesn't make us a bad team. on the contrary. we got to the finals so we were good. good but never the best or dominant best in European terms. This isn't an insult to utds achievements or other fans but it is a reality check. we have beaten a lot of poorer domestic opposition (financially until Mr abramovic came to chelsea no other team had the funds to cherry pick the leagues best players like cole or yorke). this led to an over achievement domestically but showed our true ability compared to other rich European teams who had access to wealth and players like we did.

over the course of a season that cash will see you right through strength in depth that other teams could only envy - propped up by the best homegrown team who all came though at a similar time.

but over 2 or 1 game when it is your best vs their best you can appreciate the real quality on the continent when people like ronaldo scores a hattrick at OT or kaka rips us to shreds for milan or when we crash out to leverkusen or porto or monaco because while we were good, great even we were never the absolute force of dominance that barca have become or that Milan showed or that ajax gave us.

sorry im bored and off work due to injury and this just popped into my head as i thought about tonight's fixture and our European success and failures.

 

[The Running Man]

We have on average been a great European force but never the dominant best its this that niggles at me.

nothing to do with this thread

 

[The Running Man]

i guess that's why he went down the Djemba, veron, kleberson, anderson route. he he did at least try with carrick, hardcheese and now young, jones smalling etc.

 

[The Running Man]

I think even Fergie would acknowledge he is a poor European manager. Considering how dominant we were in our leage we should have competed more strongly in Europe in the 90's in particular.

actually possibly. undoubtedly finding teams out there with equal or higher spending potential didn't help.

it seems that when we were at our peaks we didn't manage to dominate and when we came up against others in their peaks they would beat us.

 

[The Running Man]

Well a good time to be discussing Fergie being disappointing in Europe

i could tell you that im from the future and knew the bilbao result would happen. but important not yet i could still see what would happen here.

the team got shown up for (again) being packed out with one dimensional players against a team who could all play football. Basic things like control, passing tackling yes we have players who can do these things...but have a tendency to be able to do only one of those things well...

As you said shami what big victories have we had lately? not many but my point earlier was that even when we won in 99 we were quite fortunate and didn't really deserve to win on our performance. again in 2008 it was a freak penalty miss that gave us the cup. We didn't win any final as the dominant force yet when we lost the finals we got crushed both times.

the thing is teams like bayer or ajax or bilbao havent had a fraction of the funds to build a team like we have had the resources to do over the past 10 years. we've spent so much and they have spent so little in comparison but made us look ridiculously bad.

 

[The Running Man]

Don't get me wrong, i Agree to an extent that remaining competitive for so long is fantastic. But that isn't what important saying. the quality of domestic competition can vary quite wildly from one year to the next as we have seen.

but if you only aim to beat your domestic rivals and forgetabout the continent then you will only have that kind of success in a domestic competition. we can see this as all those premier leagues have led to just 2x champions leagues in 20 years and as i pointed out one was arguably a lucky result and the other was well quite lucky too.

 

[The Running Man]

but having won domestic honours more often you'd expect us to do more. don't underestimate the learning curve either. chelsea had to go through what we went through in the 90s learning the game and how to play. they got to a final dont forget. same with how arsenal did and how city have been doing.

 

[The Running Man]

Exactly. In the last 20 years only Barca and Real have won more CLs than United, neither of whom have been as consistent in Europe as United in terms of progression to the final stages. Indeed, looking back at it there are plenty of years when with a bit of luck United could have won another CL title. Even ignoring the two finals we lost, I look back at 2004 and 1997 as two years were we were unlucky not to progress further (2004 especially).

You can't say we have underperformed in Europe when, comparatively, the majority of top European sides have done worse. The reality is, had we performed any better we would have been rewriting the history books. Falling short of that mark cannot be deemed a failure.

And with that...

But if you look at barca/real social/political situation you can begin to understand this.

if barca get dumped out in the group stages, or by porto, or leverkusen then the manager gets fired. This then requires time to rebuild, not to mention the presidential elections upsetting the continuity...

if you consider the net spend by utd over this time period it must surely match if not exceed 99% of teams other than barca and real...this must also be considered.

If you accept that the '99 squad was by and large chance (it was if you consider we havent had any such talented youth come through since then, let alone as a group), and then 2008 us being so good because we had the best/second best player in our ranks (ronaldo) and since he left we have not been nearly as competetive compared to the big boys we can see that the achievements came about due to a bit of luck, or a random player...

When infact we had had so many years of potential consistency to build around (90s team plus peripherals) without being upset by manager sackings or presidential elections combined with our spend, then the issue comes to light more visibly.

 

[The Running Man]

2) The first part of that is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard. We were successful because we were lucky to have a number of youth players come through at the same time or because we had the best player in the world? No ****, how do you think other teams become successful? Is it really a surprise to you that our greatest success came when we had our best players?

if it wasnt lucky, then how come we havent counjoured up more giggsy, bechams and scholes and nevilles.

That giggs and scholes are still essential some 15-20 years later tells me thaty we were lucky to the most extreme that we had the backbone of a team come through alll at the same. if it isnt replicable then how would you class it? fortunate? skill? other? you tell me.

dont get me wrong they were subsidised by some good, (stam) and bad (cruyf) signings as all teams are, but when you dont have to buy a lw, rw, cm, cm, rb etc because you have them for free, well. it helps. then you go out and simply buy the best strikers you can (yorke cole, attempt shearer) in a time where no one else can afford these fees...

My point is not that having the best players, but that we stumbled upobn these players as opposed to consistently bringing through these players...

 

[The Running Man]

It's not that strange. NickG just occasionally likes to remind everyone that in his opinion he could do better than Ferguson.

interesting thing to say. i wrote then deleted my first response so ill ask politelyplease point out in this thread where i said i could do better personally?

you guys seem to mistake me pointing something out or criticising something for me saying that i would have been able to do it better...can we say nothing unless it is butt kissing the manager?

sure there are things i would have done differently in hindsight but if fergie said go jump off a cliff i could easily see a large number of ocuk ers ready to fall to their impending doom.