Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

astrofool · 07-04-2008 11:22AM

I find it funny that people are bigging up the WCC, oh ye of short memories.

Of course, the fact that Utd were able to use it to not have to play in the FA cup, were able to spend their days lounging by the poolside, and then come back refreshed and win the league early is all forgotten. Even the team that Utd. put out were more like a Carling cup side than the premiership side that had beat all before it the previous year, and would rightly be seen as the best in the world AT THAT TIME.

PHB · 07-04-2008 11:27AM

astrofool, United were forced by the FA to play in the WCC.

I think anyone who thinks Beckham was overrated needs to look at videos for two seasons.

A. Beckham in the treble season
B. Beckham in his last season in La Liga

In the latter, he was their best player. In the former, while he had a dodgy patch in the middle, remember those defining moments, when Keane headed the ball in for Juve, and when Ole scored from a corner? I'll give you one guess to who whipped in the ball perfectly.
Beckham for his clubs was so much more than free kicks. He could dribble, he just wasn't fast, so instead of beating a man, he'd flick the ball a half yard to the side and whip it in. Do you realise how many goals Yorke and Cole scored from headers? 17 assists in the league!! 23 overall! not to mention 6 goals.
Bentley has 6 and 9
Cole has 7 and 6
Young has 4 and 16, the only one close to him, which is a testament to how good Young has been this year.

Beckham was a world class player, i.e., the best right sided midfielder in the world, for at least 2-3 years of his life.

iregk · 07-04-2008 11:45AM

Tauren wrote: »

As for your 'only the final matters', will that is just picking and chosing, isn't it.

Your missing my point. No it doesn't mean Barnsley are a better team than Chelsea, we know that Chelsea are better but Barnsley played better and were better in the game that counted.

Lets put it this way. Chelsea got the better of Valencia in the group stages this year however lets say Chelsea got them in the final and Valencia won 2-0. Would it make a difference what the result was in the group? Of course not. Would anyone remember those games? Most likely not. The result that matters is the final and thats how you get remembered. Valencia would be remembered as a better team than Chelsea as they beat them in the final regardless of weather they got a kicking in the group.

Also has everyone fogotten the one thing that was drilled into us growing up playing ball. Let the ball do the work! A lot of people base their liking or dislike of Beckham because he coudn't dribble. Why bother wasting energy dribbling when you can pass your way around like he could?

smemon · 07-04-2008 11:51AM

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?

exactly, so we're all in agreement the world's best players play in europe, which renders the 'oh but x and y league is the best in the world...' redundant.

ok, the english league or spanish, italian may not be the attractive or exciting for neutrals, but we have the best players in europe, there's more at stake and in my opinion, there's more passion and will to win in the game here in europe.

all in all, it makes europe the best place in world football to play your football.

Mitch Connor · 07-04-2008 11:56AM

iregk wrote: »

Your missing my point. No it doesn't mean Barnsley are a better team than Chelsea, we know that Chelsea are better but Barnsley played better and were better in the game that counted.

Lets put it this way. Chelsea got the better of Valencia in the group stages this year however lets say Chelsea got them in the final and Valencia won 2-0. Would it make a difference what the result was in the group? Of course not. Would anyone remember those games? Most likely not. The result that matters is the final and thats how you get remembered. Valencia would be remembered as a better team than Chelsea as they beat them in the final regardless of weather they got a kicking in the group.

So you base yuour opinions of teams on one game, as opposed to their general performance when it is a final, but scratch that when it is not? Wonderful.

astrofool · 07-04-2008 12:08PM

PHB wrote: »

astrofool, United were forced by the FA to play in the WCC.

Oh I know, but it didn't change the fact that the trip ended up as a glorified holiday for Utd. while the FA failed spectacularly at putting in a decent bid for the World cup anyway.

iregk · 07-04-2008 02:16PM

Tauren wrote: »

So you base yuour opinions of teams on one game, as opposed to their general performance when it is a final, but scratch that when it is not? Wonderful.

There is no point even talking to you anymore. Your picking certain points and ignoring the entire context of a post. I'm done.

iregk · 07-04-2008 02:19PM

smemon wrote: »

there's more passion and will to win in the game here in europe.

Have you ever actually football from south america? Watch the copa this year and then come back here and post up that there is more passion and will in europe.

The biggest derbys in europe fade away so quietly when you see the passion of those in south america.

LuckyLloyd · 07-04-2008 02:22PM

I remember watching that Vasco / Utd game and thinking "**** me, that's football". Vasco bossed it and Edmundo and Romario operated on a different planet.

However, Utd could have many very legitimate excuses as to why they weren't at the races that day (climate, disinterest, etc).

At the end of the day you win or you lose football matches. How you win is kinda irrelevant - something that can be debated after the winners have drank themselves silly celebrating and the losers have kicked something in frustration and drank themselves silly commiserating.

Utd were inferior to Bayern on the day in 1999 but didn't give up and snatched it at the death. Liverpool were inferior to Chelsea and Milan in 2005 but didn't give up and rode their luck to the trophy.

Revisionist debates over who deserved what are usually a great waste of time. Beckham wasn't the most important part of the treble winning side anyway - take Keane away for the whole of that season and there is no treble. Add Keane into the final and there is probably no need for last gasp heroics.

I'm sure passionate Utd fans still remember the day in great detail just as I remember 2005 in great detail. It's good that NTL is willing to question stuff that is supposedly set in stone. At the end of the day people should be able to discuss this stuff without reverting to strong language and borderline abuse. It doesn't really matter because the margins between success and failure at that level are so very tight.

Mr Alan · 07-04-2008 02:31PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Liverpool were inferior to Chelsea in 2005

:eek:
Hold on a second!

LuckyLloyd · 07-04-2008 02:53PM

Mr Alan wrote: »

:eek:
Hold on a second!

Yo, remember the second leg where we scored and were then penned in our own half for the rest of the game and Gudjohnsen missed a sitter at the death that puts them through? Heroic defensive effort. But we weren't the "better" team over two legs. Not that I care - we won. Which is the point.

UnitedIrishman · 08-04-2008 01:33AM

astrofool wrote: »

I find it funny that people are bigging up the WCC, oh ye of short memories.

Of course, the fact that Utd were able to use it to not have to play in the FA cup, were able to spend their days lounging by the poolside, and then come back refreshed and win the league early is all forgotten. Even the team that Utd. put out were more like a Carling cup side than the premiership side that had beat all before it the previous year, and would rightly be seen as the best in the world AT THAT TIME.

+1

The whole trip was a glorified holiday in fairness, a chance to recharge the batteries mid-season. For one, they did fack all training and instead spent their days sunning themselves or playing head tennis on the beach. To be honest its not exactly the most heralded tournament either.

There was no one better than us in 1999. Considering that we were missing our central midfield against Bayern - would we have won it more comfortably if Scholesy and Keano were available? Who knows. All I know is that we took home the trophy, aswell as the Premiership and FA Cup. Its one thing to fluke the CL or the FA Cup with a couple of up and down results but to win all three and then for people to say they weren't the best? Do me a favour.

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

Oh yes I forgot that the match ends after the first goal is scored. :rolleyes: The best sides through time play until the final whistle. Our lads never gave up and if you look at the second half, fair enough Jancker hit the bar and Scholl hit the post, but we were largely on top in the possession stakes but just needed something to click up front.

As for an average squad, an average squad doesn't win three trophies in one year and then goes on to win three Premierships in a row.

Unearthly · 08-04-2008 02:13AM

Don't forget in the group stages Bayern got a very late equaliser against united cause of a Schmeichael mistake.

but let's forget that and look for other reasons:rolleyes:

Just reading the last few pages and I'm in shock to be honest. I thought certain posters were tongue in cheek but they actually believe what they are saying or trying to wind Man Utd fans up?

They win 3 competitions in 1 season, but some tournament they didn't take seriously in January the year after was the most important cup?

They got found out playing Vasco? lol how about the time they played Bayern 3 times, Barca twice, Inter twice, Juventus twice?

Pathetic that some people have such hatred for Man Utd

Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

Comments