Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,952
- Location
- Surrey
Did he just use Rosicky as an example of a good buy? The guy barely plays!!
***UEFA Champions League/Europa League 2010/11 Matchday 1***
- Thread starter jrodga2k5
- Start date
Yup and also classed Berbatov and Bale as midfielders :/
It's because Bale's a liability defensively that they are playing him on the wing but hey lets not get technical about these things!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
i used him as an example of a good player with champions league experience who didnt cost the earth.
you cant be bothered to discuss it because you know im right or because? you even admitted as much in your own post!
did i? please show me where i stated that these players were midfielders? they were just examples of teams buying good experienced players for less cash than you would expect.
what kind of retarded statement is that?
no thats not quite what you said, ill quote you, to make it easier for you to understand:
so they arent good enough but we cant replace with experience? ah but other teams seem very able to do this very cost effectively.
yes and whos our great first choice right back? ah thats right, we dont have one. Neville i hear you say? er... not good enough or fast enough any more to be the no.1 choice for Man Utd says i. therefore we have no rightback who is good and experienced.
no, thats what I said. how long as scholes been at the club? how long has fergie been trying to find, well a partner for him (since keane left) or even a replacement? the cloest we have is fletcher and carrick. i could have spent that 18million on the slot machines and as a team we still would have been better off than we are now. and that is the truth.
Do you really believe that if wenger had been given 300-500million to spend over the last few years that his team would be littered with artefacts of a decent youth team that happened so many years ago?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,952
- Location
- Surrey
You think we've spent 300m to 500m over the last few years :/
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
no i said, if wenger had been given that much money would he employ john o'shea as anything more than a boot boy?
in the last 5 years i believe man utd have spent £185 million?
give that to wenger and tell me if he is relying upon 35 year olds and giggs.
in the last 5 years i believe man utd have spent £185 million?
give that to wenger and tell me if he is relying upon 35 year olds and giggs.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,952
- Location
- Surrey
...but we don't have that much money so what point are you making?
If Sunderland had 7 billion do you think they'd still be taking Welbeck on loan? No probably not, and that's as entirely unrelated as what you said.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,952
- Location
- Surrey
Yes, I don't think Fergie would do the kind of complete team changes that City/Chelsea did.
The question was actually to Nick but if you think Fergie would keep average squad players even if he had the money to bring in better players then you're kind of agreeing with Nick
The question was actually to Nick but if you think Fergie would keep average squad players even if he had the money to bring in better players then you're kind of agreeing with Nick
If Fergie spent a load of money, it'd be one or two key players (foreign), and the likes of (before any were sold) Rodwel, Milner, Young, Bale etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,492
And all you got was a point against Rangers
Well yes, but I wouldn't call Rangers a "lesser" team - poor judgement from SAF there i'm afraid.
I was thinking more of the likes of the West Broms, Wigans, and West Hams of the world (no disrespect to supporters of those teams intended).
If any manager had City type money they'd do the exact same thing as City have done. They'd go out and fill their squad with as many of the best players they could get their hands on.
I would call them a less team and 99 times out of 100 you'd have beaten them comfortably with the side you fielded. You just had an off day.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 57,952
- Location
- Surrey
I don't think so. "better" is a matter of perspective. How long would they take to adapt to our league? Would they definitely fit in with our style of play? Would they have the experience playing in this sort of setup? I don't think so. That's why you always need players like that around. Sure you could go buy an entire new team but this isn't FM. There's no guarantee they'd be better than what you had.
We would, yes. But in terms of ability they're certainly a cut above the cannon fodder in the EPL IMO.
I stand by my rants about negative football but despite that, we should have scored.
All we had to show for the evening was an ankle break to one of our wingers. A very bad day at the office by anyone's standards.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
thing is, over the past 10 years we probably have had close to 300million to spend.
and yet the brown and oshea problem still exists.
we have spent ALL this money, and when scholes and giggs and neville retire what do we have to show for it? the team around them is a shambles really apart from a sprinkling of exceptional individuals.
sure we have 2 good centre backs and rooney.
but what else? the Naniman? Valencia? it is a team that fails to inspire thats for sure.
Most of the money has been frittered away in a piecemeal fashion, 18 million here, 19 million there, thats not even taking into account the 30's we splashed out on, such as Veron 'the one' or Berbatov.
Carrick is hardly a world beater, hargreaves wont play again. anderson seemingly was a waste of 18 million?
had that kind of cash been given to wenger, no doubt he would have still bought like arsh, van the man, and then used the rest to get better than denilson, and some decent keepers.
our own transfer solvency and plus/minus has been saved by the sales of youth, such as Beckham or the sale of Ronaldo - a player fergie didnt want to sign anyway - it took the rest of the team to convince him that we needed him anyway.
That's no different to any transfer dealings though. Whether you've got £10m to spend or £500m, the process is the same; you identify the best players you can afford that you believe can fit into your system/adapt to the EPL, that would improve your squad.
If you had £500m to spend, you honestly think that Fergie could only find 1 or 2 players that he believed would improve your squad?