169 replies to this topic

[Tomchin]

COYS, on 01 May 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Manchester United simply got 'lucky' that their most successful period coincided with an era where the Premier League was growing in popularity overseas. 6 titles in 100 years prior to Sky money, 13 in 20 since then.

Wow, didn't know that the difference was so big.  So before 1990, Liverpool were by far the most successful club?  It's weird that since the introduction of that "Sky money", Liverpool barely won any league-titles anymore.  Is there a particular reason for that?  Did they make some bad choices back then, or was it simply bad luck?

[Every Player Here GetsSold]

Lukemeister, on 01 May 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Just heard united fans smashed, city clubs shops windows, thats  fucking low.

Whoop de fucking doo, not like they can't afford to replace them. They do the same thing every derby, black jackets zipped up until they get in the ground so nobody susses they're United fans then if they lose they all get in a group and start trying to kick off with fans with women and children. Scum.

Tomchin, on 01 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Wow, didn't know that the difference was so big.  So before 1990, Liverpool were by far the most successful club?  It's weird that since the introduction of that "Sky money", Liverpool barely won any league-titles anymore.  Is there a particular reason for that?  Did they make some bad choices back then, or was it simply bad luck?

They made Souness their manager.

[COYS]

Tomchin, on 01 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Wow, didn't know that the difference was so big.  So before 1990, Liverpool were by far the most successful club?  It's weird that since the introduction of that "Sky money", Liverpool barely won any league-titles anymore.  Is there a particular reason for that?  Did they make some bad choices back then, or was it simply bad luck?

Yes prior to the Premier League, Liverpool were England's most successful club. In 1992 when the Premier League was formed Liverpool had won 18 titles, Arsenal 10 titles, Everton 9 titles, Aston Villa 7 titles, and Manchester United 6.

A mixture of bad choices, and some bad luck. I think if the Premier League had been formed in 1972 as opposed to 1992, then the last twenty years of English football would have looked very different as United were relegated to the Second Division in 1973. England's 'top four' biggest clubs could have become Liverpool, Leeds United, Derby County and Nottingham Forest if they'd have benefit from TV exposure and had worldwide fanbases.

A lot of it is to do with timing, although United have had a brilliant manager during the last two decades whereas Liverpool haven't.

[Tokyo Sexwale]

Timing is everything, in football.

[Gooner Mark]

Jeff Winger., on 01 May 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

If United weren't so so poor in midfielder Mancini might have gifted the game. I'm not talking about pressing them but taking out the players who can keep possession and bringing players who are just in front of the defence is not the smartest move. And City winning the game is irrelevant, otherwise I would just "watch" games in livescore and praise managers when their teams win.

Well bringing Tevez off for de Jong seemed like a natural move seeing as Yaya Touré pushes on in games to conserve the little energy he has left at that point, plus Tevez looked completely bolloxed coming off the pitch. Man City didn't look any worse going forward with Touré up there instead of Tevez imo, so that change was warranted. Micah Richards was a very defensive change, no doubt, but it also did give them more stability out on the right. Zabaleta had a cracking game but had also probably run himself into the ground by the end. Then with Milner, a few months ago he would've been expecting to start over Nasri, realistically, so it's not that defensive a change. It sures things up a bit but had Mancini gone with a defensive mindset, he probably would've started with Milner anyway. Neither were "cowards" but out of the two managers last night, it certainly wasn't Mancini who bottled it with the tactics.

[M.U.F.C OK]

Writing was on the wall with Giggs and Park in for Valencia and Welbeck. So pissed off with that, one of our best attacking displays of the season in the previous game, Rooney and Welbeck linking up so well and we ditch em straight after.

No complaints about the game, city had it.

Gutted we've thrown it away. Come on Newcastle.

[Gooner Mark]

I don't think Ferguson would fully accept that he got his selection or tactics wrong. Personally, I think he did get it wrong. That said, I think he would argue that if United had done the basics right - ie. defended a corner properly - then you would have gotten the necessary point. Assuming, despite what he said pre-match, that his aim was to actually play for the draw then you could argue that his tactics and team selection should have actually worked.

The reality is that City only managed three attempts on target - one of which was the goal and another which was Clichy's effort when United had pushed on late in the game. So despite City's dominance, they didn't actually create that many clear cut chances and I think for that reason, Ferguson will be more annoyed with the manner in which United conceded the goal than anything else.

Now personally, I think that Ferguson put too much focus on the tactics and essentially let the shape of his team have too much of a say on the line-up. Tactical selections are of course important if you're going to have any chance at the top level of football but there is always the argument that you play your best players and given how impressive the likes of Valencia and Welbeck have been in comparison to Park and Giggs it does seem as if he shot himself in the foot dropping those two despite how much thought he probably put into his team selection.

[M.U.F.C OK]

Can't remember us testing Joe Hart at all really, tactically we weren't there last night. Football's greatest ever manager he gets it right a lot more than he gets it wrong but I think his team selection never really gave us much of a chance last night.

Can understand us 4-5-1, but you can drop Rooney back into midfield with Welbeck leading the line, which he has done very well this season. Giggs, has a good game 1 in 6, the other 5 he can be woeful, giving the ball away time and time again.

Park in for Valencia really got me as well, Park hasn't been involved for about the last 10 games and he chucks him in for this game?! I don't buy this works hard, defensive winger garbage either, Valencia is superb at tracking back and helping his fullback and is 10 times more effective up the pitch than park.

[Lukemeister]

Fergie panicked before the game i think.

[Gooner Mark]

The thing is, Mancini's mind games haven't even been that good. I mean, he's doing a great job and they are working but some of the stuff he's saying is so blatantly trying to play mind games that they shouldn't even be counted. The times he's gotten it right in particular included after the Arsenal game where he completely wrote them off and that could have been taken as genuine as it did seem like game over at that point. He's done brilliantly since then.

In the pre-match press conferences yesterday, Ferguson talked the game up but Mancini completely played it down. I wonder what the attitudes were like behind the scenes.

[seaders]

Master Bates, on 01 May 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

I don't think Ferguson would fully accept that he got his selection or tactics wrong. Personally, I think he did get it wrong. That said, I think he would argue that if United had done the basics right - ie. defended a corner properly - then you would have gotten the necessary point. Assuming, despite what he said pre-match, that his aim was to actually play for the draw then you could argue that his tactics and team selection should have actually worked.

The reality is that City only managed three attempts on target - one of which was the goal and another which was Clichy's effort when United had pushed on late in the game. So despite City's dominance, they didn't actually create that many clear cut chances and I think for that reason, Ferguson will be more annoyed with the manner in which United conceded the goal than anything else.

Now personally, I think that Ferguson put too much focus on the tactics and essentially let the shape of his team have too much of a say on the line-up. Tactical selections are of course important if you're going to have any chance at the top level of football but there is always the argument that you play your best players and given how impressive the likes of Valencia and Welbeck have been in comparison to Park and Giggs it does seem as if he shot himself in the foot dropping those two despite how much thought he probably put into his team selection.

tbh, it wasn't really that much of a 'domination',
http://www.whoscored...hes/507216/Live

53% possession to 47% really isn't that.  but in another way it was, that way was the pure control City had over the game.  Kompany et al absolutely dominated from their goalline to about 30 yards out, really solid display.  we were fairly solid too, but like how they scored, I felt we were crazy shaky from set-pieces, while not threatening ourselves and even when we tried to 'push on' (the quotes are there, because it's an insult to former United teams to call what we did late in the game last a 'push on'), we were totally toothless.

cest la vié, c'mon Newcastle!

[GZA]

It's not like the goal we gave up was some colossal break down either. Kompany got himself in a position Smalling couldn't follow him into and got that inch needed to get the ball into the goal.

[Gooner Mark]

Those points are pretty much what I was saying. I mean to concede from a set-piece will really have pissed Ferguson off considering that the questionable line-up he put out didn't exactly collapse and let City run riot in open play. My point was that he could argue that his tactics weren't wrong and would have gotten the job done had United done the basics right and defended the set-piece.

Now even with that argument in mind, I'd still say he should've included the likes of Valencia and Welbeck but you could see where he'd be coming from with the point that his tactics weren't what lost United that game. They're the reason why you didn't have a better chance of scoring goals, but they're not the reason you conceded in the first place.

[GZA]

I'd be okay with his tactics if Giggs & Park were competent at what they were sent out to do but neither of them are. Actually, I have no idea what Giggs was sent out there to do.

[seaders]

that's the way I look at it too.  I mean, I can *slightly* understand Giggs being on the pitch, if he's playing in the hole.  there's been a few times where he's played there and can hold the ball up with good close control, to take pressure off us, but even at that, he's been able to play there successfully only a few times, and mostly towards the end of a game.  but starting in the middle of the park for us?  no way.  and as for Park... blurgh, not even going to go there.

one way or another, for me, one of the main reasons we lost this game is one of the main reasons Fergie is bullshitting when he says we've enough quality in the centre of the park.  for our most important game of the season, the biggest Manchester derby probably in history, we start the game with Giggs, Scholes and Park who together have a combined age of over 100.  it was one thing when Milan were doing similar with Pirlo, Gattuso, Nesta, Maldini, et al, but for us to start playing that game with someone like Park just makes me sick.

still though, with the season that's been in it (16+8 {City up by 8, then us, now back to level} point swing during squeeky bum time tells most of the story), I don't think anyone should be saying anything's 100% done and dusted.  nowhere near, tbh.