Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread - Read Mod Warning in OP 7/1/15

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The other side of that is that perhaps there are teams in the league below who would aren't as good at playing for the draw and would benefit from the change. Adapt or die, there'll be 20 teams in the top division regardless, they just might be different ones playing a more entertaining brand of football.

Not that I'm saying I'd agree with the change, but I can see the logic and I don't think this is a great argument against it.

I just think it is far too radical a change and is very out-of-the-blue. Just out of interest, why is the part you quoted not a great argument against it? Ok, I know it's not a 'great' argument, but what's stopping these teams from raising their game now without this radical rule? I imagine success/survival is enough of an incentive to get these teams playing to their best, which they currently are.

I really can't see it benefiting anyone but the top 6-8 teams in the league initially. "Adapt or die" is great in theory, but how many seasons would it take for them to adapt and what would the league be like in the meantime?

Hey, it could be the best thing to happen to the league since the 'no pass-back to the keeper's hands' rule came in, but in theory I'm just not a fan of it.

TheDoc

I think an apology might be in order, I think I totally de-railed the thread

Back more on topic, someone mentioned above about Sunderland not being that bad. Sunderland are terrible. I really dislike them. Gus Poyet is as Barry Glendelling best put it " a Uruguayan one man excuse machine". Nothing is ever his fault, it's always someone else. Then every few weeks he trots out the " OK no more excuses" to then follow up with an excuse.

Sunderland are an ATROCIOUS team, who conjure up these wild results every so often to keep him in a job and their fans calm for a few weeks. Everytime he is about to suffer proper pressure for being an absurd manager, Sunderland get a big win and the tide subsides.

The only worry I have is that we could be ripe for another freak Sunderland result.

Granted I probably am spreading some harsh critique on the squad based on my distaste for their manager, I've seen enough of them to see an atrociously bad team, that for the life of I do not know why Leicester and Burnley are not ahead of.

Swansea are a good team. A loss to them isn't a freak result, they have good players, a good manager and play a good game. But if we lost to Sunderland tomorrow, or even stumbled through, I'll be in panic mode. If our defense struggled to handle Conor Wickham, Stephen Fletcher and Defoe, it's game over man...game over

Ironically, on reflection, probably cause they get so many draws, and those points are valuable to them.....ugh

Maximus Alexander

stankratz wrote: »

I just think it is far too radical a change and is very out-of-the-blue. Just out of interest, why is the part you quoted not a great argument against it? Ok, I know it's not a 'great' argument, but what's stopping these teams from raising their game now without this radical rule? I imagine success/survival is enough of an incentive to get these teams playing to their best, which they currently are.

I really can't see it benefiting anyone but the top 6-8 teams in the league initially. "Adapt or die" is great in theory, but how many seasons would it take for them to adapt and what would the league be like in the meantime?

Hey, it could be the best thing to happen to the league since the 'no pass-back to the keeper's hands' rule came in, but in theory I'm just not a fan of it.

I think it's not a great argument because you're saying it would be bad for some teams, but ignoring the fact that it would be good for others. There have to be 20 teams in the top division, so they'd just be replaced by ones that could compete.

So say if... Sunderland go down because they aren't good a winning but get lots of draws. They might be replaced by Brentford who win more often but then lose instead of drawing the rest of the time. That arguably results in a more entertaining league and is the point of the proposed change in the first place.

In that part of your post you're basically using the premise as an argument against itself.

Kirby

stankratz wrote: »

I just think it is far too radical a change and is very out-of-the-blue. Just out of interest, why is the part you quoted not a great argument against it? Ok, I know it's not a 'great' argument, but what's stopping these teams from raising their game now without this radical rule? I imagine success/survival is enough of an incentive to get these teams playing to their best, which they currently are.

You keep calling it a "radical" rule change. It really isn't. Is it any more radical than 2 points for a win moving to 3 points? How about the offside rule. That was a complex rule they implemented. Or the keeper not being allowed to pick up the ball from a back pass.

How is it radical? I'm not advocating a second goalie here or a ban on using your head. Perspective please.

And nor is it out of the blue. The rulemakes have been stewing on this for a while. The South African world cup was a big concern as goals were down and most team were playing ultra conservatively. The idea of no points for a scoreless draw reared its head then too. A lot of other ideas were thrown around, but I prefer this one over the rest by quite a margin.

Have to fly out the door here Kirby and Maximus, but will be back with a proper reply later. Just to say now, by 'radical' I mean a change to an age-old, well-established rule which hasn't been mentioned or touted anywhere in the mainstream media that I've seen, and i think my use of it is proper as far the dictionary goes.

Two goalies would be entertaining for a match or 2 though :pac:

Ed The Equalizer

Since a 0-0 is better than a defeat, it could change to 1 for 0-0, 2 for a score draw, and 4 for a win. Think it would be great for the game.

Kirby

Ed The Equalizer wrote: »

Since a 0-0 is better than a defeat, it could change to 1 for 0-0, 2 for a score draw, and 4 for a win. Think it would be great for the game.

Yeah that's an option alright. I could get on board with that.

homerjay2005

Trilla wrote: »

Tomorrow will be 1-1 or 2-1 to Utd

we will win 3-0 or more tomorrow.

Vic Vinegar

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we will win 3-0 or more tomorrow.

I'm liking the confidence!

mcratsix

Ashley young has to start tomorrow, he's looked dangerous since his return from injury

J. Marston

Feck that, I was confident we'd do the business against Swansea.

Back to the tried and trusted pessimism from this point on. 3-0 Sunderland.

Liverpool to beat City too.

TheDoc

Really good interview with Herrera in the Telegraph. What a refreshing attitude.

Makes me take back worries he might be sold. Sounds like he is up for the fight to be a starter !

The_Kew_Tour

I remember a few weeks back where we were discussing "must win" games.

I think it has come to crucial stage now where we need the 3 points tomorrow.

A draw or dare I mention a defeat and the knifes will be out like never before.

Tomorrow has turned out to be a bigger game then I imagined before .

I'm optimistic we will win. Performance would be a bonus.

posturingpat

Hoping for a win tomorrow but i actually expect to lose :eek: Yes i did just say that, Sunderland are excellent in these kind of games,they love to sit back soak up the pressure and nab a goal and Utd quite frankly are pathetic when it comes to trying to break down a side.

Van Gaal has to be gone by the summer unless there's a dramatic improvement soon because this has been truly horrendous,had so much luck it's untrue and still going to find it tough to get top 4. What's that old saying A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet,well the opposite should apply too and a rancid bag of poo like Van Gaal has been shouldn't get away with it purely because he's called Louis Van Gaal,talks with an intriguing accent and likes to say Philosophy regularly,i'll start the trend #lvgout

Nolars

Probably posted already but here anyhow.

Nalz

homerjay2005 wrote: »

we will win 3-0 or more tomorrow.

Why do u think this?

Backstreet Moyes

Trilla wrote: »

Why do u think this?

Because Sunderland are awful and we are very good at home. It's a standard 2 or 3 nil win.

Lord TSC

Our home record seems to be 10 wins, 2 losses and 1 draw, so I'd be fully expecting a win...

kryogen

I learned something tonight, boards.ie just keeps giving and giving. Louis Van Gaal likes his teams to play dour football, it is his way apparently.

Great stuff, of course to believe this you do have to ignore his career and how he has had his clubs playing (the majority of the time obv) and what he strives to achieve in terms of performance, but those little facts shouldn't really matter I suppose.

The Moldy Gowl

Ffs kry. Get with the times. Lvg is the worst manager in the world

Long ball Fellaini is all we are and full of spoofers.

Christ. Some people.

posturingpat

Lads you're saying it as if it's ludicrous to think his stint at United has been poor. Serious question here,what games have united genuinely played good football for 90 minutes or hell even 60? I can only think of the QPR game and Cherry Orchard would've gave them a tight game that day they were that poor.

Van Gaals team this season consists of bland,pedestrian passing and the midfield players look creatively shackled and afraid to play with any amount of imagination, De Geas unbelievable form has covered up the defensive frailties to an extent but i honestly am never feeling safe when any opposition attacks.

In truth the most effective play United have had this season has been the direct route with Fellaini. Here's an interesting thing myself and a few pals said over a few pints the other evening,if Utd were handing out a player of the year so far who would it be leaving out De Gea who was the obvious answer so we made up a shortlist, guess who was on it, Valencia(a winger playing full back) Young(a winger playing fullback) and Fellaini the apparent worst player ever to play for Utd according to some :rolleyes: When these 3 guys are your most consistent players aside from your goalkeeper there is something seriously wrong and the manager has to take at least a portion of the responsibility.

The whole Van Gaal having a magnificent record is a bit misleading too,he's had plenty of failures as well as successes,couldn't get a good Dutch side to the Euros in 2002,left Barcelona in the bottom half of the table in his second stint and even when with Barcelona originally and with Bayern people go on about him winning leagues as if it's a huge achievement,it is far from it in truth,it's acceptable nothing more and nothing less for them clubs as plenty of coaches found out and to have not won a Champions league with either side is disappointing. As for him apparently always playing attractive football,did anybody watch the World cup?

kryogen

Lad, your responding as if you think the comment was about Uniteds season.

Timmyctc

posturingpat wrote: »

Here's an interesting thing myself and a few pals said over a few pints the other evening,if Utd were handing out a player of the year so far who would it be leaving out De Gea who was the obvious answer so we made up a shortlist, guess who was on it, Valencia(a winger playing full back) Young(a winger playing fullback) and Fellaini the apparent worst player ever to play for Utd according to some :rolleyes: When these 3 guys are your most consistent players aside from your goalkeeper there is something seriously wrong and the manager has to take at least a portion of the responsibility.

Here's an interesting thing. It was you and your 'mates' who decided these were our best players, over pints no less. Don't get worked up about it hey?

The_Kew_Tour

Nice fancy Match thread up there now.

See if I can bring a change in fortune.

Nalz

Nuts102 wrote: »

Because Sunderland are awful and we are very good at home. It's a standard 2 or 3 nil win.

I bet nobody here would put a decent amount on us scoring 3 or more as he said.

Maximus Alexander

Is relegation still mathematically possible? Because I think United will get relegated because LvG is the worst manager ever.

bucketybuck

kryogen wrote: »

I learned something tonight, boards.ie just keeps giving and giving. Louis Van Gaal likes his teams to play dour football, it is his way apparently.

Great stuff, of course to believe this you do have to ignore his career and how he has had his clubs playing (the majority of the time obv) and what he strives to achieve in terms of performance, but those little facts shouldn't really matter I suppose.

As a United fan I sure am glad that some other teams in the past played good football and won trophies, that more than makes up for the turgid crap we have been watching this season.

irishfeen

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nice fancy Match thread up there now.

See if I can bring a change in fortune.

Some effort made to be fair to ya

posturingpat

Timmyctc wrote: »

Here's an interesting thing. It was you and your 'mates' who decided these were our best players, over pints no less. Don't get worked up about it hey?

Are you OK?

posturingpat

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Is relegation still mathematically possible? Because I think United will get relegated because LvG is the worst manager ever.

I think you're lying.