Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

Unearthly · 04-04-2008 07:03PM

Tauren wrote: »

but he wasn't a great dribbler - that is apparently the mark of a great player.

ahh but Ronaldo isn't a great player as he doesn't do it in big games

We need a player who is Beckham and Ronaldo combined!

deisedevil · 04-04-2008 07:53PM

I can't stand Gary Neville as a person but equally I can't stand it when he's dismissed as an average player. He's the most succesful Right Back in the history of the premiership and in 2005 and 2007 he wasn in the PFA Team of the year and he is always the first choice right back for England.
It's just another example of a player who isn't liked by many not getting the credit he deserves. (bit like Ronaldo)

kinaldo · 04-04-2008 07:58PM

ntlbell wrote: »

Real,Milan,bayern,juve position for position were all far better teams.

I really dislike Man Utd, and much more so back in 99, but...

Real were sh1te that year having sacked Jupp Heynckes after winning the CL in 98. Barca romped the league in 99 but apart from two classic draws with Man Utd were sh1te in Europe.

Juve were a team on the slide, Del Piero had been found out by then, Di Livio, Conte, Peruzzi etc were all getting on and everyone hated Inzaghi.

Bayern were overly reliant on their aging stars, Lizarazu, Scholl, Effenberg, Hassler and Mathaus. Elber was never a world beater. They failed to beat Man Utd in 3 attempts. Had Keane and Scholes played the final it's unlikely they would have come so close to winning it.

Milan weren't even in the CL that year. They won the league for the first time since 96 after two disasterous seasons but were widely considered to be very lucky that year.

I can't think of anyone better than Man Utd that year. They scored more goals, won more games, and lost less games than any other team. Arsenal were almost as good but didn't actually win anything.

LuckyCharms · 04-04-2008 08:53PM

I would love to know where some of ye find this stupid reasoning behind some of the replies.
United had the best team in 99 withoutdoubt, we beat the best to become the best.

This thing about beckham is bordering on the ridiculous side also, in his prime at united he was a great player,was lethal from free kicks and his crossing was second to none, Fergie got rid of him when he was beginning to lose his edge just like he did with RVN,keane etc.The term world class seems to get thrown around alot these days and beckham no matter how great he was ,never quite reached the heights to be called world class.Beckham came, he saw, he conquered then he got flogged to spain when he was past it,now he is a global spokesman for "soccer" in the states.No matter what anyone says beckham was a great player in his time and he is a great spokeman for the game in America.

The only person who wasn't sold for those reasons was stam who i think even fergie regrets selling and i know stam regrets opening his trap in his autobiograpy.

On the subject of Gary Neville,well he has been the best right back in the premiership for many a year ,that says all you need to know about his ability.

themont85 · 04-04-2008 11:06PM

Much what I would have said is already in the thread, but this is why I think Man Utd were great that year and the best team. We beat Juve, Inter, and got passed a group with Barca and Bayern. What more do you want? Also nobody appart from Utd have ever done the Treble(not the crappy one 'pool one:D) in english football history. I'd also sight specifically our win in Turin that year, backs against the wall they delivered and didn't rely on a home crowd to get us through. Sign of a great side to me and the best in europe that year.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 04-04-2008 11:46PM

LuckyCharms wrote: »

United had the best team in 99 withoutdoubt, we beat the best to become the best.

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

Peyton Manning · 04-04-2008 11:56PM

No, but we did win the Intercontinental Cup that year.

Nalz · 05-04-2008 12:30AM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They were good but not the best in the world.

who were and why T4TF?

Xavi6 · 05-04-2008 01:29AM

ntlbell wrote: »

man citeh beat us home and away this year so they're the best team in england?

I wish to subscribe to youe newsletter.

ntlbell wrote: »

Beckham is hot, I would do him. but I wouldn't have him in a sunday league pub team.

Subscription cancelled.

Sqaull20 · 05-04-2008 01:41AM

Luck!!!!!!

Its all you ever hear..

liverpool were so lucky to win the champions league Milan all over them, Italy were so lucky to win the world cup Australia robbed, Arsenal should have won wednesday night, Bendtner blocked shot on line, Hleb peno etc...

No such thing as Luck ffs

You are either good enough or your not..

Muff_Daddy · 05-04-2008 01:46AM

I've only read the first page....so let me see if I have this. We have a United fan, ntlbell, who is argueing that the 99' side was average, and that they fluked the treble, no less? Oh and Peter feckin' Schmeichel is only 'decent' according to him?

Madness.

LegacyUser · 05-04-2008 01:51AM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

This is ****ing absurd...ban yourself.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 05-04-2008 09:17AM

Why is it absurd, surely this point (based on little things like fact which you seem to like to ignore when you are wrong) is a valid one in a thread asking about whether united were the best in the world in 1999.

ROCKMAN · 05-04-2008 10:25AM

As the saying goes the league table doesn't lie.
With that it mind

If the champion's league was put in league format.

AFTER THE FINAL IT READS

.... ......... Played..... Goals ...... PTS
Man Utd ..... 13 ....... + 14 ........ 25
BAYERN .... . 13 ........ + 14 ........ 25

but if it was a league no final (playoff )

.... ... ............ Played...... Goals ...... PTS
BAYERN ............. 12 ..... +14 ...... 25
MAN UTD ............. 12 ..... +13 ..... 22

hmmm interesting
But we where alot better than average

LegacyUser · 05-04-2008 12:14PM

Trilla wrote: »

who were and why T4TF?

I want to know this too...

TFTF can you please answer the question?

So on your logic, Necaxa or Vasco De Gama were the best team in the world then...what a crock of ****.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 05-04-2008 12:15PM

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

Peyton Manning · 05-04-2008 12:18PM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

To be fair, only 1 team in that tournament had won their continents championship (i.e. Champions League equivalent) and that was Man Utd.

The winner of the Copa Libertadores was Palmeiras. They werent in that competition. However, they were in the Intercontinental Cup, and we beat them in the final.

LegacyUser · 05-04-2008 12:21PM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

Are you sure winning the world club championship factually states that the winner is the best club in the world?

Thanx 4 The Fish · 05-04-2008 12:24PM

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

Nalz · 06-04-2008 11:26PM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

The thing about this post is you know its a load of bull yourself.

Dont be at yourself · 07-04-2008 07:05AM

I cant believe the slating Beckham gets, particularly from Man Utd fans. He was/is world-class, of that there is no doubt to me. He couldn't beat a man, and he didn't have pace, but his other attributes more than made up for that. His vision and his passing made his lack of pace and dribbling technique redundant. Add in his crossing, free-kicks, his work-rate and his professionalism and it's case-closed.

It perplexes me that Beckham is slated by a large proportion of football fans for being slow and one-geared, while extolling the virtues of players like Riquelme. He's just a poor-man's Beckham if you ask me!

iregk · 07-04-2008 08:58AM

Well I think a lot of the stick Beckham gets is largely due to himself and the tabloid media in england. Most here watch their footie on sky and watching sky sports news which is a moving version of the sun. They have constantly told us how amazing beckham is for the past decade and so peoples opinion of him are hugely divided.

Take the free kick against Greece. Everytime we hear about it they tell us how much of a god he is and how he was the best player in the world because of that free kick etc... They will never make any mention at the fact that it was his 8th free kick from that range to actually shoot from. Now it was a cracker but lets not ignore facts, if a player like him has that many shots he is bound to score with at least one.

In my opinion Beckham is possibly the most over rated player to ever play the game. Thats not to say he is a bad player, i happen to think he was a very good player when used correctly but he certainly wasn't the Michel Platini the english media tried to convince us he was. The other part of the reason is him. People hate to see footballers more concerned about their image and public opinion than their preformances on the pitch and most will conceed that at the end of his united spell he had become more a media man than a footballer.

When stories of his madrid contract started to come out and him demanding a stylist in teh dressing room, pre match and at half time peoples opinions dropped even further. We know he left Madrid and pretty much gave up on his career for a big final pay day in the Us. We have seen now that he was more concerned about money and publicity/branding than he ever was about football.

He couldn't tackle, couldn't beat a man and couldn't kick with his left foot but then again. Maradonna couldn't play with this bad foot nor tackle! Does that make him a bad player? No of course not. Its about using your players strenghts to the good of your team. Beckham has a sublime range of passing, crossing and he could pull strings when he wanted to. United used that the best they could and so did Madrid. For them he was brilliant.

Mitch Connor · 07-04-2008 09:04AM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

Your thesis is BLOWN APART by the FACT the WCC was in 2000, not 99!

Game, set and match.

Xavi6 · 07-04-2008 09:07AM

Tauren wrote: »

Your thesis is BLAWN APART by the FACT the WCC was in 2000, not 99!

Game, set and match.

Ah come on. It was played in January 2000 but was the competition for the 1999 season.

Mitch Connor · 07-04-2008 09:11AM

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah come on. It was played in January 2000 but was the competition for the 1999 season.

Nope, i'm keeping my pedantically won point.:D

The thread is about United in 99. The WCC was not in 99. In the 98/99 season, United were the best around and we got what we deserved come May. In 2000 onwards we slipped backwards, but in 99 there was no one better than us.

iregk · 07-04-2008 09:21AM

Tauren wrote: »

The thread is about United in 99. The WCC was not in 99. In the 98/99 season, United were the best around and we got what we deserved come May. In 2000 onwards we slipped backwards, but in 99 there was no one better than us.

Would you stop. The WCC was actually supposed to be in summer of 99 and be a result of the 98/99 season but all clubs couldn't commit so they moved it to Jan 00. On that basis it is a 98/99 season tournament.

As soon as United came up against some good talent they were torn apart. I remember watching United being caught like a rabbit in the headlights getting a 3-1 kicking by Vasco. United's goal coming in the 82" minute after Vasco had taken off the big names. Still you went on to beat the heavy weights of world football Melbourne to claim your place as the worlds best.

I'm sure I'm also not alone here in thinking Bayern were a better team in the final and got a sucker punch.

Mitch Connor · 07-04-2008 09:31AM

iregk wrote: »

Would you stop. The WCC was actually supposed to be in summer of 99 and be a result of the 98/99 season but all clubs couldn't commit so they moved it to Jan 00. On that basis it is a 98/99 season tournament.

As soon as United came up against some good talent they were torn apart. I remember watching United being caught like a rabbit in the headlights getting a 3-1 kicking by Vasco. United's goal coming in the 82" minute after Vasco had taken off the big names. Still you went on to beat the heavy weights of world football Melbourne to claim your place as the worlds best.

I'm sure I'm also not alone here in thinking Bayern were a better team in the final and got a sucker punch.

So, Barcelona, Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich are all crap. Would YOU stop. As for Bayern being the better team in the final - we were the better side in both home and away games in the group stages and bayern didn't deserve the draws they got in either game, so on 2 out of the 3 occasions we met them that year, we were the better side, and didn't lose to them once.

Also, it doesn't matter a single bit when the comp was SUPPOSED to be played, it wasn't in 99.

smemon · 07-04-2008 09:36AM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

I'd agree with this to an extent.

i.e. if you win a champions league and no domestic trophies, you can't be regarded as the best side in england or domestically and therefore is questionable whether you're the best in europe if you can't win your own league..

But win the two major domestic trophies, plus a champions league and you can't deny Utd were the most consistent and powerful side out there in 99 certainly in europe, and arguably in the world.

Europe is generally regarded as the home of football and with the organisation, structure, finance etc.. that's why you see the ronaldinho's, cafu's, carlos', maradona's etc... set up shop here. If these player's domestic leagues are so great, why then do they come over here?

It's nonsense to argue the brazilian league or any other league outside of europe is the best in the world when it's on a smaller stage and doesn't contain their star players.

Europe is where the world's elite play and as there is no proper world club cup, and never will be (due to hectic schedules and international cups), you can only base a side on their performance in their own league and in europe.

iregk · 07-04-2008 10:27AM

smemon wrote: »

If these player's domestic leagues are so great, why then do they come over here?

Simple. Money. The south american leagues are class, the level of play is top notch as is the entertainment. The problem is it just doesn't have the money. So top players such as Kaka, Ronaldinho see that they can earn 100k a week in Europe why not rather than earn 20k a week?

Tauren wrote:

So, Barcelona, Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich are all crap.
Also, it doesn't matter a single bit when the comp was SUPPOSED to be played, it wasn't in 99.

I never said a word about Barca, Juve or Inter in any of my posts. I simply mentioned Bayern. It doesn't matter what you do in the group stage its the end game that counts. In the final Bayern were a better team and deserved it.

As for your 00 -v- 99 argument your just being childish now. The comp was for the 98/99 season and you got taken apart. Face it. So the comp was on the 12th of may against a full moon tide with venus aligned with saturn in 1999 there fore it doesn't count a bit. Please keep posting, your giving me a great laugh.

Mitch Connor · 07-04-2008 11:18AM

iregk wrote: »

Simple. Money. The south american leagues are class, the level of play is top notch as is the entertainment. The problem is it just doesn't have the money. So top players such as Kaka, Ronaldinho see that they can earn 100k a week in Europe why not rather than earn 20k a week?

I never said a word about Barca, Juve or Inter in any of my posts. I simply mentioned Bayern. It doesn't matter what you do in the group stage its the end game that counts. In the final Bayern were a better team and deserved it.

As for your 00 -v- 99 argument your just being childish now. The comp was for the 98/99 season and you got taken apart. Face it. So the comp was on the 12th of may against a full moon tide with venus aligned with saturn in 1999 there fore it doesn't count a bit. Please keep posting, your giving me a great laugh.

No, you said as soon as united came up agaisnt a talented side (Vasco) we were found out. So the implication is Barca, Inter, Juve were not talented.

As for your 'only the final matters', will that is just picking and chosing, isn't it. So United were the better side against Bayern in Munich, and at Old Trafford, but that doesn't count cause Bayern were better in Barcelona where United were without their central midfield. Come off it - you are being childish yourself, and your bull is giving me a good laugh too.

As for your comments regarding Vasco in general (saying they are better than United cause they beat us in the WCC. Going by the same logic - Barnsley are a better side than both Chelsea and Liverpool. Beat both of them after all.

Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

Comments