quote:

ORIGINAL: Goodfella

quote:

ORIGINAL: James2183

On reflection what is going to be seen as more awkward. Sky Sports news with their colour coordinated presenters and desperation to make the most boring deadline day in history seem vaguely important or Odemwingie's first day back at training with WBA?

I agree, it's all been fairly woeful and this transfer window is notorious for being incredibly overrated, I'd say the best signing of the day is Jack Butland joining Stoke, it's probably the only one we'll be able to all remember in a couple of years time! Simon Jordan says QPR is like "the lunatics running the asylum." Ask the administrators of CPFC in 2007 all about that, he'd certainly know...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

So the 'fruit cake' could've won it for QPR. Can't say i really smpathise with their plight. In fact if they get relegated today i wouldn't be too bothered. Good riddance.

quote:

"I saw a headline saying Arsenal are flying the flag for Britain, I kind of wondered where that British involvement actually was when I looked at their team. It's important that top clubs don't lose sight of the fact that it's the English Premier League and English players should be involved.

Foreign players have been fantastic. We have learned from them and from foreign coaches.

It's an English club but not an English success."

quote:

"If you can't learn about being a person and a footballer from Yohan Cabaye, then you shouldn't be a footballer. The guy gives you everything," he said.

"He's not a local boy, he's not from London or Manchester - he's from France. It's about good players and that's what the Newcastle's fans want.

"The game has changed, the English game is morphing into the European game. There's more thinking, the passion and the speed is often tweaked up for the Premier League."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

"I saw a headline saying Arsenal are flying the flag for Britain, I kind of wondered where that British involvement actually was when I looked at their team. It's important that top clubs don't lose sight of the fact that it's the English Premier League and English players should be involved.

Foreign players have been fantastic. We have learned from them and from foreign coaches.

It's an English club but not an English success."

quote:

"If you can't learn about being a person and a footballer from Yohan Cabaye, then you shouldn't be a footballer. The guy gives you everything," he said.

"He's not a local boy, he's not from London or Manchester - he's from France. It's about good players and that's what the Newcastle's fans want.

"The game has changed, the English game is morphing into the European game. There's more thinking, the passion and the speed is often tweaked up for the Premier League."

top bants from Pardew. wish we had bought Sissoko though, what a player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I can understand where you're coming from, but I just can't agree when there's been no team to dominate the Champions League in the way you're describing. You can point to domestic dominance, but it's totally arbitrary when it comes to European football (which is what my point with the wall of text about Barcelona was). Being the best in a league means nothing except being better than the other teams in that country, and has no correlation to being the best team in Europe. The PL was well behind the Serie A and La Liga throughout the 90s and the early 00s as well, so that needs to be taken into consideration. And during the period in the mid/late-00s where English football became the dominant force, they were the most successful English team in the tournament (along with Liverpool). The only time in the history of the CL where one team has been the best in Europe for a number of years in a row is recently with Barcelona, and even then they haven't won it back to back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

If you take Ferguson's record in Europe in what it should be based on - his performances in Europe, and not about how he 'should have done' - then it's roughly as good as Real Madrid (six consecutive round of 16 exits from 04/05 to 09/10), Barcelona (the aforementioned five early exits), Bayern Munich (four) or A.C. Milan (five). If these teams aren't the closest to 'dominant' you can think of in the Champions League, I don't know who are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I can understand where you're coming from, but I just can't agree when there's been no team to dominate the Champions League in the way you're describing. You can point to domestic dominance, but it's totally arbitrary when it comes to European football (which is what my point with the wall of text about Barcelona was). Being the best in a league means nothing except being better than the other teams in that country, and has no correlation to being the best team in Europe. The PL was well behind the Serie A and La Liga throughout the 90s and the early 00s as well, so that needs to be taken into consideration. And during the period in the mid/late-00s where English football became the dominant force, they were the most successful English team in the tournament (along with Liverpool). The only time in the history of the CL where one team has been the best in Europe for a number of years in a row is recently with Barcelona, and even then they haven't won it back to back.

How have I described dominating the CL? Because you seem to think I mean a team should win the CL every season. I haven't said that. I even said in my last post there's never been a 3-5 period when Man Utd could be called the best team in Europe. And I didn't mention winning it every year. The domestic dominance isn't totally arbitary and you can't write that off. If a team is the best in a league such as the PL then they theoretically should be one of the best teams in Europe given the standard of players and the resources available. Being one of the best teams in Europe should mean they get far in the CL every year. Man Utd have done that recently yes but they haven't always. And throughout the last 20 years it's been rare when at the start of the tournament people say Man Utd are the best in Europe and are favourites. There always seems to be another team more highly rated than them. Why is that?

Also Real Madrid were widely considered the best team in Europe in the late 90s and they won 3 finals in that time. So it's not just Barca.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

If you take Ferguson's record in Europe in what it should be based on - his performances in Europe, and not about how he 'should have done' - then it's roughly as good as Real Madrid (six consecutive round of 16 exits from 04/05 to 09/10), Barcelona (the aforementioned five early exits), Bayern Munich (four) or A.C. Milan (five). If these teams aren't the closest to 'dominant' you can think of in the Champions League, I don't know who are.

That's ridiculous, you can't ignore how teams 'should have done'. You might think Man Utd have done fine in the CL in the last 20 years but I guarantee you Ferguson will not be happy with winning it twice. And once again you're listing teams (apart from Bayern who as I said are famous for being bottlers in Europe) who have had periods when they haven't been very good (comparatively). Milan have only won 3 Serie A titles in the last 17 years. And yet all of those have won more than Man Utd in Europe. Why? Because they are just better at the tournament for some reason.

I really don't know how you can disagree that Man Utd haven't transferred their domestic success to Europe. Whether that means being considered the best team in Europe or just winning the CL more often, they just haven't done it. There's two things people remember when talking about periods of time - who won the trophies and who played the best football. I don't think anyone will look back on anytime between 1993 and 2013 and say Man Utd were either of those. Other teams will though.

Maybe the Man Utd fans can answer on here whether they're happy with only winning it twice in the last 20 years?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

quote:


Maybe the Man Utd fans can answer on here whether they're happy with only winning it twice in the last 20 years?

No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

quote:


Maybe the Man Utd fans can answer on here whether they're happy with only winning it twice in the last 20 years?

No.

r u serious? You're in a tiny minority of clubs to have done so and be in a position to do so again. You're regularly in the latter stages of the tournament. The only thing standing between United and five European Cups is two finals against arguably the greatest club team of all time. And you think Ferguson has actually let you down by only winning the Champions League twice and getting to four finals? Incredible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Yes, I think it makes more sense to judge United's European performances based on actual performances rather than hypothetical 'should have done' performances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

No, I didn't suggest that winning consecutive CLs is the only indicator (which is why I referred to those teams' records in reaching the last eight of the tournament as well as their winning records).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

No, being the best the in PL doesn't mean that you're one of the top three or four teams in Europe if other leagues in Europe are stronger at that time. (I'm saying 'top three or four' since United's position as one of the top eight in Europe has been just as consistent as the other big guns in the tournament.) You're also ignoring just how far behind the Serie A and La Liga the PL was in the early/mid-90s, which skews the statistics even further in the favour of Real, Barca and the big Italian clubs. And United were considered the favourites for a few seasons between the mid-00s and Barca's recent dominance, when they were the best team in the PL and the PL was the best team in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

What other teams do you want me to list? I've named all the most prominent teams in European football (regardless of their domestic fortunes) over the last twenty years and I've shown that Man United's record is equal to all of them pretty much. I can't make this any clearer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

(not that this post will make a difference anyway.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

On another note I've been refreshing the Guardian website continuously this evening in anticipation of the article that's surely forthcoming in criticizing Cech's performance yesterday where his inability to gather the ball led to Sissoko's first goal and Reina's performance today where he fluffed his lines for Aguero's goal (cracking finish by the Argentine though).

Or are these types of mistakes only article worthy if De Gea makes them .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc


I'm not asking you to list any teams, it was you who started using them to compare Man Utd to. It's funny though that you say Man Utd's record is equal to them all pretty much because as I've pointed out all those teams barring Bayern have gone through bad periods in the last 20 years and yet have all won the same or more CLs. So they've actually done as well as or better than Man Utd without having a consistently good team as Man Utd have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Yes, I think it makes more sense to judge United's European performances based on actual performances rather than hypothetical 'should have done' performances.

Can we extend that to one off performances then? Eg. we should ignore that Chelsea should have beaten Reading yesterday given the differences in personnel? Or should we just base on actual performance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

my point the whole time has been that United have had a consistently good team *by Premier League standards*. There's only been one period in the last twenty years where that standard is 'best in Europe' standard for an extended period, and that's ca. 2006-2008 when Ronaldo was the best in the world and, yes, United were the favourites for the CL. The point about the other teams mentioned not having a consistently good team is again relative to the quality of the league they were playing in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Yes, I think it makes more sense to judge United's European performances based on actual performances rather than hypothetical 'should have done' performances.

Can we extend that to one off performances then? Eg. we should ignore that Chelsea should have beaten Reading yesterday given the differences in personnel? Or should we just base on actual performance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I'll stop now because I feel like a jerk for pursuing this, but two points:

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Shearer on a player throwing a punch at another: "It's nothing."

Shearer on a player spitting in the general direction of another: "Ban this sick criminal forever!!!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Shearer on a player throwing a punch at another: "It's nothing."

Shearer on a player spitting in the general direction of another: "Ban this sick criminal forever!!!"