UEFA CL SF 1L - Barcelona vs Manchester United - Apr 23
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Football is football. Chelsea comprises of 11 men, so too do Barnsley. Maybe you would like to explain why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season? Were the sportsbooks out of their mind to rate Barnsley as 10/1 outsiders for the tie?I haven't got a clue if you have some serious issues with basic comprehension - either that, or you must be reading into things invisible to anyone else. What has fatigue or fitness got to do with the disdainfully defensive display on show at the Nou Camp? Mind, most of the top players actually featured. So are you chastising Ferguson for picking tired players, and therefore accounting for the 0-0 draw? Or was the 0-0 more a consequence of what was effectively a staged and planned display where defence was of paramount importance (a point which Ferguson has since alluded to post-match)?
Back to the point. Granted, those "lesser" teams you mentioned stand a chance. What does that show, really? They can win, but would, in all probability, do so less often than the big guns. Is that not a simple matter of probability? After all, would you not like to explain why the G14 clubs - combined - have amassed a Champions League (I include the record in the old European Cup in that assessment) trophy haul that amounts to more than half the number of Champions League campaigns since the tournament first started in the mid-50s? And since when do such clubs pride themselves on just claiming a "lesser" side for a scalp?
Seriously, what's the geist of all this "small club can win" talk all about? I never once said small clubs can't upset the odds, did I? Fact of the matter is, like it or not (and dispute it whatever way you want, but the facts obviously won't back you up) suggest "small clubs" succeed at a frequency far lower than their bigger counterparts. Hence, why should the biggest clubs out there settle for claiming the scalp of the small fries?
Now, back to your point about Barcelona being a big club - a big club sure they are. I'm not sure if my point is still lost on you. Obviously, in any game of football, someone's going to win at the expense of their opponents (well, in this context, someone has to qualify at the expense of the other) - big or small club, you don't expect any rational fan to be happy with elimination! That said and done, are you seriously suggesting going to the Nou Camp with a defensive-approach, not trying to get the away goal is what you'd come to expect of a side that aims to win the Champions League (or are you suggesting United are actually happy to just make the semis?) ?
The fact of the matter here is not about whether you simply get the result in the end - if you're into sports with the results being your solitary concern, you're better off following the financial markets. The geist of the point here is, United simply didn't play with the intent (playing on the counter-attack is hardly playing to win, is it?) to win and they deservedly didn't.
You could go on about being pleased they have given their all (what that "all" means is anyone's guess) and pat yourself on the back for backing a side that you reckon has done well. All said and done, and taking your words at face value, I'd rather be supporting a team that plays to win - and loses - than one that chooses to bore the hell out of (that's what the performance on Wednesday was) football purists on the back of a silly strategy that looks set to backfire.
If you're even old enough to remember Monaco back in '98, you may better appreciate the point I'm going on about. If you aren't, that just about sums up our differences - obviously, your memory of Keane will be very different from mine if all you remember about him was his post-Boro tirade.
Yes, now we are talking about football and not some McDonald restaurant anymore aren't we... Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
Well, since you asked... when you think of it, its common logic isn't it... We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup... Right? You ask yourself would you exchange your brand new latest PC for an old Pentium 2 one? I think the answer is very simple right even my 12 yrs old nephew will know...
What has fatigue or fitness got to do with the disdainfully defensive display on show at the Nou Camp?
Well, plenty i guess... cos if the players are tired, they probably can't perform to their usual standard wouldn't you agree? If you are working, and after a long day at work, you wish to return and have a good rest but your employer asked you to stay back and do another 10 hrs shift... Would you still be able to perform as normal or with a more tired body? The answer is simple right... The slow pace to the game was probably to preserve the players for the 3 matches in 6 days... If you care to check up and read a little, you will find Fergie already complain about the matches being so close and trying to get his players fit for their second match in 60 hrs... I can give you a link if you want, naa... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=562021&in_page_id=1779&ct=5 there are more tho if you care to read them...
Coincidentally, you know last season United were also challenging for the EPL title and couldn't rest any players at this stage while AC Milan could and eventually won with a fresher team... we cannot deny it helped their cause just like it helped Pool in 2005 when they were free of all other commitments. The human body can only stretch so far, anymore and it can't take it. And if you have forgotten, Before United travel to Spain, they had a very tough physical match against Blackbure... Therefore going to Spain and running around crazy in a gung ho manner could backfire... You saw they went to Roma last yr and tried that way and ended up losing 1-2. Btw, is Roma a big club for you? Just curious between Roma and Barce, which is bigger to you?
Now it seems to me that you are on the fence in most of the points you wish to address... Pick a side and stick to it can... From your earlier post, you said 0 - 0 in the nou camp is a bad result, then we got...
"For the record, at no stage did I suggest going to the Nou Camp and win was a divine right " .... Then...
That said, you must be living in your own world to think getting a 0-0 draw away from home at one of the top sides in Europe is a good result .... Then ....
how is that coming any closer to justifying what is still a poor result for a team that aspires to win the Champions League and not simply make up the numbers?
Stop contradicting yourself can... you are making me confuse... and now you are saying...
Seriously, what's the geist of all this "small club can win" talk all about? I never once said small clubs can't upset the odds, did I? ... Then we get...
Seriously, are you suggesting Lyon (worth remembering this season's Lyon is not the one from seasons gone by), Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke are teams you consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League?
Yes, why not... Did anyone give Porto half a chance in 2004? Did anyone thought Monaco would even get close to the final in 2004 despite all the by your own words (standards are sky-high at the big clubs teams)? I bet you didn't right since you seem to think all these smaller clubs couldn't be consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League...
Well, lets see... if Barnsley can beat the 2 semi-finalist of this year's CL clubs and very soon one of the finalist... Why can't these clubs Lyon, Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke be consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League... No doubt their chances are slim but slim doesn't mean no chance right? if they are there, there is still a chance... Then you look at the FA Cup. The (standards are sky-high at the big clubs teams) aren't there anymore, instead we got only 1 premiership club left, the others i'm not sure some league 1, 2 sides for the semis, final?
So Barcelona is a BIG club to you now right? ok... so getting a difficult scoreless draw away at a big club where other teams have concede and lost is not a good result to you? So you think they should have scored and won? No one is suggesting going to the Nou Camp with a defensive-approach, not trying to get the away goal. It just happens that they couldn't get an away goal thats all! They tried but couldn't, they even had a penalty but was unfortunate could not score... Of course they would have like a goal too if they can get it... I bet you would like to be paid like our minister too right but you tried and couldn't so you settle for lesser right? Same scenario...
My memory of Keane is still very clear its not all i remember about him was his post-Boro tirade. It was you who mention...
Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
I think you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... During that time, Keane was a disruptive influence on the squad... He was creating trouble with other players... Shortly after that Boro incident Fergie took the step to removed him. And after he left the team started to perform better. So if Keane left shortly after that Boro match how could he be credited for the better performance?
Just before that Boro incident, he complained about the training camp in Portugal, when he argued with Ferguson over the quality of the set-up at the resort. Keane's appearances on MUTV provoked more controversy, when, after the humiliating 4–1 defeat at the hands of Middlesbrough in early November, he took the opportunity to criticise the performances of JOS, Alan Smith, Richardson and Fletcher. The harshest analysis, however, was reserved for the club's record signing Rio Ferdinand... He even had problems with Carlos Queiroz if i am not wrong...
Lastly, I like to say it again, I never mention it's a great achievement just to make it to the semis and anything beyond that is a bonus, all i said is as long as they tried and go as far as they can, they have done enough in my view. Remember what i have said, in sports you can never be first all your life... sometimes you just have to accept defeat graciously and look forward to another season... Even if the 0-0 isn't enough, it still doesn't change my support for the club or the team...
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Yes, now we are talking about football and not some McDonald restaurant anymore aren't we... Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
Well, since you asked... when you think of it, its common logic isn't it... We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup... Right? You ask yourself would you exchange your brand new latest PC for an old Pentium 2 one? I think the answer is very simple right even my 12 yrs old nephew will know...
What has fatigue or fitness got to do with the disdainfully defensive display on show at the Nou Camp?
Well, plenty i guess... cos if the players are tired, they probably can't perform to their usual standard wouldn't you agree? If you are working, and after a long day at work, you wish to return and have a good rest but your employer asked you to stay back and do another 10 hrs shift... Would you still be able to perform as normal or with a more tired body? The answer is simple right... The slow pace to the game was probably to preserve the players for the 3 matches in 6 days... If you care to check up and read a little, you will find Fergie already complain about the matches being so close and trying to get his players fit for their second match in 60 hrs... I can give you a link if you want, naa... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=562021&in_page_id=1779&ct=5 there are more tho if you care to read them...
Coincidentally, you know last season United were also challenging for the EPL title and couldn't rest any players at this stage while AC Milan could and eventually won with a fresher team... we cannot deny it helped their cause just like it helped Pool in 2005 when they were free of all other commitments. The human body can only stretch so far, anymore and it can't take it. And if you have forgotten, Before United travel to Spain, they had a very tough physical match against Blackbure... Therefore going to Spain and running around crazy in a gung ho manner could backfire... You saw they went to Roma last yr and tried that way and ended up losing 1-2. Btw, is Roma a big club for you? Just curious between Roma and Barce, which is bigger to you?
Now it seems to me that you are on the fence in most of the points you wish to address... Pick a side and stick to it can... From your earlier post, you said 0 - 0 in the nou camp is a bad result, then we got...
"For the record, at no stage did I suggest going to the Nou Camp and win was a divine right " .... Then...
That said, you must be living in your own world to think getting a 0-0 draw away from home at one of the top sides in Europe is a good result .... Then ....
how is that coming any closer to justifying what is still a poor result for a team that aspires to win the Champions League and not simply make up the numbers?
Stop contradicting yourself can... you are making me confuse... and now you are saying...
Seriously, what's the geist of all this "small club can win" talk all about? I never once said small clubs can't upset the odds, did I? ... Then we get...
Seriously, are you suggesting Lyon (worth remembering this season's Lyon is not the one from seasons gone by), Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke are teams you consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League?
Yes, why not... Did anyone give Porto half a chance in 2004? Did anyone thought Monaco would even get close to the final in 2004 despite all the by your own words (standards are sky-high at the big clubs teams)? I bet you didn't right since you seem to think all these smaller clubs couldn't be consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League...
Well, lets see... if Barnsley can beat the 2 semi-finalist of this year's CL clubs and very soon one of the finalist... Why can't these clubs Lyon, Rangers, Stuttgart, Celtic and Schalke be consider to be genuine contenders for the Champions League... No doubt their chances are slim but slim doesn't mean no chance right? if they are there, there is still a chance... Then you look at the FA Cup. The (standards are sky-high at the big clubs teams) aren't there anymore, instead we got only 1 premiership club left, the others i'm not sure some league 1, 2 sides for the semis, final?
So Barcelona is a BIG club to you now right? ok... so getting a difficult scoreless draw away at a big club where other teams have concede and lost is not a good result to you? So you think they should have scored and won? No one is suggesting going to the Nou Camp with a defensive-approach, not trying to get the away goal. It just happens that they couldn't get an away goal thats all! They tried but couldn't, they even had a penalty but was unfortunate could not score... Of course they would have like a goal too if they can get it... I bet you would like to be paid like our minister too right but you tried and couldn't so you settle for lesser right? Same scenario...
My memory of Keane is still very clear its not all i remember about him was his post-Boro tirade. It was you who mention...
Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
I think you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... During that time, Keane was a disruptive influence on the squad... He was creating trouble with other players... Shortly after that Boro incident Fergie took the step to removed him. And after he left the team started to perform better. So if Keane left shortly after that Boro match how could he be credited for the better performance?
Just before that Boro incident, he complained about the training camp in Portugal, when he argued with Ferguson over the quality of the set-up at the resort. Keane's appearances on MUTV provoked more controversy, when, after the humiliating 4–1 defeat at the hands of Middlesbrough in early November, he took the opportunity to criticise the performances of JOS, Alan Smith, Richardson and Fletcher. The harshest analysis, however, was reserved for the club's record signing Rio Ferdinand... He even had problems with Carlos Queiroz if i am not wrong...
Lastly, I like to say it again, I never mention it's a great achievement just to make it to the semis and anything beyond that is a bonus, all i said is as long as they tried and go as far as they can, they have done enough in my view. Remember what i have said, in sports you can never be first all your life... sometimes you just have to accept defeat graciously and look forward to another season... Even if the 0-0 isn't enough, it still doesn't change my support for the club or the team...
Since when was football not a competitive game? Does it alter the fact that Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool combined have still amassed more FA Cups than any other 4 teams you could put together? Apparently, you seem pretty confused between the fact that "small teams are capable of causing upsets" does not quite equate with the notion that "by the law of averages, the big sides still dominate". So what do you not understand?Sure, the players were tired - I guess you're attributing the fact United packed 10 men behind the ball for large spells of the game to fatigue too, huh? Or was that pre-meditated and orchaestrated with the sole intent of playing on the counter-attack(perhaps, I am supposed to assume you know better than Ferguson since, despite his claims that they'd planned to play on the counter-attack, you dispute that)? I suppose it must be down to fatigue too that United lost to Portsmouth in the FA Cup and, in all probability, an excuse that's waiting to be unleashed come Tuesday when Barcelona give us the boot?
What's the whole chunk about you citing Liverpool and Milan to begin with? On what basis are you making the claims that those two sides triumphed with a "fresher" team? Did Liverpool/Milan play fewer games in the respective seasons they won the Champions League? For the record, Milan played more games in 2003, 2005 and 2007 (when they made the final on all 3 occasions - winning twice - and finished comfortably within the top 4 in Serie A) than they did this season.
Are you capable of comprehending elementary English? Just because I said United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result, does it? Look, if you believed you could score 80 in an exam (on the basis of your ability and consistency in having done so in the past) and fail to do so in a particular exam does not necessarily mean you should be pleased, should you? Does that then mean you have a divine right to score an 80? Apparently, your incoherence is what's causing you to "sit on the fence".
If you're confused, it reflects a serious contradiction in your fundamental ability to comprehend logic. What exactly are you still going on about Porto, Monaco (both 2004) and Barnsley for? Read what I have written above in red if you still don't get my point (likewise, go over the whole chunk in red as to your reiterations about Lyon, Old Firm, Stuttgart and Schalke). And to think you even had the audacity to ask me why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea! Now, if that isn't contradiction, I don't know what is!
I never said Barcelona was not a big club, did I? My point was - and still is - a club of United's stature shouldn't be settling for just a draw at the Nou Camp (especially a scoreless one) in view of the precarious position it'd leave United in in the overall context of the tie - what do you not understand? You're perfectly entitled to think United - or even your life for that matter - are doing well to settle for second-best. I don't, that's all. What can you not accept? For the record, they were not "unfortunate" not to score as far as I'm concerned - any team that packs 11 men behind the ball and seek to play on the counter-attack should have nothing to complain about when they don't nick the goal they need. Period. This is pretty much same as the point mentioned above - a simple difference of perception. Just because you're happy to settle for second doesn't mean everyone else is or should be.
Look, your ignorance is mind-boggling as far as Keane's influence on United goes if all you remember is about the post-Boro tirade. With due respect, let me enlighten you on some of the more newsworthy soundbites you've obviously missed : http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/tm_objectid=16317025&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=keane-blast-is-gagged-name_page.html
In particular, pay attention to the following two quotes :
2001: ON BREAKING UP UNITED TEAM AFTER DEFEAT AT BAYERN MUNICH
"The players gave it their all but we are just not good enough. You have to face the facts and I think the signs have been there this season and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team."2002: ON WINNING THE TREBLE IN 1999
"The champagne was flowing, people were going crazy, but my belief was we had been lucky against a Bayern Munich team that bottled it. We should have bought big after winning the Treble, gone for the best, and let those who didn't care if they never won another trophy join the sort of clubs that don't win any."Now, it may be easy to criticise those criticisms as mere emotional outbursts made in the heat of the moment. Go over those comments more carefully and try making sense if Keane was spot on after all - the rot had been so acute from that spell (when Keane made those comments) all through to the 2006 Champions League campaigns when elimination at the last 16 and group stages became commonplace. Was it reasonable to expect a club of United's stature to make an exit at that stage? Just get a grip and come off the deluded "this is football and anything can happen" albatross - the question here is a matter of expectation rather than probability which you obviously struggle to comprehend! After all, if you're going to live life on the basis that one-in-a-trillion aberrations can well be used to excuse everything that doesn't follow an anticipated trend, I suppose there isn't a need for statisticians, researchers and quality-assurance experts in life, is there?
Sure, you're perfectly entitled to your views, just as I'm entitled to mine. It may be good enough for them to try hard and go as far as they can (fact of the matter is, "good" and "going as far as they can" are subjective - down to a difference in perception again) as far as you're concerned. I certainly wouldn't regard a defeat in the semi-finals as being "good" and "having gone as far as they can" when they have wasted half the tie playing for a clean sheet which could come back to haunt them come Tuesday. Apparently, perhaps the final point that is obviously lost on you is your misinterpretation that my definition of success that United must be "first" all the time - all said and done, I wouldn't exactly think it acceptable a club of this stature doesn't aspire to be the best out there (whether they succeed or not is another matter entirely, but it's one thing to embark on a foolhardy policy of shooting yourself in the foot)...
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Since when was football not a competitive game? Does it alter the fact that Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool combined have still amassed more FA Cups than any other 4 teams you could put together? Apparently, you seem pretty confused between the fact that "small teams are capable of causing upsets" does not quite equate with the notion that "by the law of averages, the big sides still dominate". So what do you not understand?Sure, the players were tired - I guess you're attributing the fact United packed 10 men behind the ball for large spells of the game to fatigue too, huh? Or was that pre-meditated and orchaestrated with the sole intent of playing on the counter-attack(perhaps, I am supposed to assume you know better than Ferguson since, despite his claims that they'd planned to play on the counter-attack, you dispute that)? I suppose it must be down to fatigue too that United lost to Portsmouth in the FA Cup and, in all probability, an excuse that's waiting to be unleashed come Tuesday when Barcelona give us the boot?
What's the whole chunk about you citing Liverpool and Milan to begin with? On what basis are you making the claims that those two sides triumphed with a "fresher" team? Did Liverpool/Milan play fewer games in the respective seasons they won the Champions League? For the record, Milan played more games in 2003, 2005 and 2007 (when they made the final on all 3 occasions - winning twice - and finished comfortably within the top 4 in Serie A) than they did this season.
Are you capable of comprehending elementary English? Just because I said United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result, does it? Look, if you believed you could score 80 in an exam (on the basis of your ability and consistency in having done so in the past) and fail to do so in a particular exam does not necessarily mean you should be pleased, should you? Does that then mean you have a divine right to score an 80? Apparently, your incoherence is what's causing you to "sit on the fence".
If you're confused, it reflects a serious contradiction in your fundamental ability to comprehend logic. What exactly are you still going on about Porto, Monaco (both 2004) and Barnsley for? Read what I have written above in red if you still don't get my point (likewise, go over the whole chunk in red as to your reiterations about Lyon, Old Firm, Stuttgart and Schalke). And to think you even had the audacity to ask me why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea! Now, if that isn't contradiction, I don't know what is!
I never said Barcelona was not a big club, did I? My point was - and still is - a club of United's stature shouldn't be settling for just a draw at the Nou Camp (especially a scoreless one) in view of the precarious position it'd leave United in in the overall context of the tie - what do you not understand? You're perfectly entitled to think United - or even your life for that matter - are doing well to settle for second-best. I don't, that's all. What can you not accept? For the record, they were not "unfortunate" not to score as far as I'm concerned - any team that packs 11 men behind the ball and seek to play on the counter-attack should have nothing to complain about when they don't nick the goal they need. Period. This is pretty much same as the point mentioned above - a simple difference of perception. Just because you're happy to settle for second doesn't mean everyone else is or should be.
Look, your ignorance is mind-boggling as far as Keane's influence on United goes if all you remember is about the post-Boro tirade. With due respect, let me enlighten you on some of the more newsworthy soundbites you've obviously missed : http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/tm_objectid=16317025&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=keane-blast-is-gagged-name_page.html
In particular, pay attention to the following two quotes :
2001: ON BREAKING UP UNITED TEAM AFTER DEFEAT AT BAYERN MUNICH
"The players gave it their all but we are just not good enough. You have to face the facts and I think the signs have been there this season and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team."2002: ON WINNING THE TREBLE IN 1999
"The champagne was flowing, people were going crazy, but my belief was we had been lucky against a Bayern Munich team that bottled it. We should have bought big after winning the Treble, gone for the best, and let those who didn't care if they never won another trophy join the sort of clubs that don't win any."Now, it may be easy to criticise those criticisms as mere emotional outbursts made in the heat of the moment. Go over those comments more carefully and try making sense if Keane was spot on after all - the rot had been so acute from that spell (when Keane made those comments) all through to the 2006 Champions League campaigns when elimination at the last 16 and group stages became commonplace. Was it reasonable to expect a club of United's stature to make an exit at that stage? Just get a grip and come off the deluded "this is football and anything can happen" albatross - the question here is a matter of expectation rather than probability which you obviously struggle to comprehend! After all, if you're going to live life on the basis that one-in-a-trillion aberrations can well be used to excuse everything that doesn't follow an anticipated trend, I suppose there isn't a need for statisticians, researchers and quality-assurance experts in life, is there?
Sure, you're perfectly entitled to your views, just as I'm entitled to mine. It may be good enough for them to try hard and go as far as they can (fact of the matter is, "good" and "going as far as they can" are subjective - down to a difference in perception again) as far as you're concerned. I certainly wouldn't regard a defeat in the semi-finals as being "good" and "having gone as far as they can" when they have wasted half the tie playing for a clean sheet which could come back to haunt them come Tuesday. Apparently, perhaps the final point that is obviously lost on you is your misinterpretation that my definition of success that United must be "first" all the time - all said and done, I wouldn't exactly think it acceptable a club of this stature doesn't aspire to be the best out there (whether they succeed or not is another matter entirely, but it's one thing to embark on a foolhardy policy of shooting yourself in the foot)...
Man you are really weird... I asked you this question? "why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea!" this question? You serious? I asked you this silly question? Let me tell you, i was merely quoting you from your last post on page 4 first paragraph... Go and take a look, its still there... You were the one that was actually asking me to explain, explain what? You think i am George Gomaz is it... why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash and my replied was this (1st post 2nd paragraph on page 5)
Well, since you asked... when you think of it, its common logic isn't it... We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup... Right? You ask yourself would you exchange your brand new latest PC for an old Pentium 2 one? I think the answer is very simple right even my 12 yrs old nephew will know...
So now football is a competitive game to you right... So you should also understand that in every competitive sports upsets and shock results are very common isn't it? So what right does your so called "big sides" have that they should be winning everything or every smaller clubs? Arsenal beat AC Milan in Milan, people saw it as an upset... Roma eliminated Real Madrid, that is seen as a shock result... So why can't United be "held" to a draw at nou camp? Its just part of the game... Though i know you are old enough but i still think there is a need to tell you to grow up man... If you are so called disappointed or upset or just frustrated that United couldn't win or scored an away goal or played to a counter attacking style, let me tell you... you are weird... I have already said earlier why... Then you came up with...
What can you not accept? For the record, they were not "unfortunate" not to score as far as I'm concerne...
So this is your opinion? Well I have already said ealier and i will say it again... It just so happens that they couldn't get the away goal... You think they don't want it? Like i said earlier, If you could to be paid like our minister you would want that too right but you tried and couldn't you will have to settle for lesser right or not? Or you shoot yourself in the head and die? The point here is they tried, they even had a penalty but could not score... And when you can't even score from a penalty, it is unfortunate...
Ok now we get to the FA cup... Ok, you pick the big 4 to show us the "by the law of averages" thing... The FA cup competition commenced in 1871... to date it is around 136 yrs since the first winner was crowned, so the 4 clubs you used to back up your theory wins 32 amongst themselves all these years... So if you were to take that into prospective, They have manage to win 23.5% out of 100%. This is lesser than one quarter of the titles won... So what about the other 3 quarters, the other 76.5% ? Well... let just say they were won by smaller clubs shall we... Cos this year, we will have another "smaller club" winning it again...
"What's the whole chunk about you citing Liverpool and Milan to begin with? On what basis are you making the claims that those two sides triumphed with a "fresher" team? Did Liverpool/Milan play fewer games in the respective seasons they won the Champions League?
Well i think the whole world can see and knows that before an important CL match, many or maybe even all the regular players are rested... the second strings players are used... Anyway, playing the same number of matches doesn't equal the same amount on matches a player plays... Its just shows that the club played equal number of matched thats all, it doesn't tell you who was playing and who wasn't... Would you like to bet how many of Pool players who played on Tue will take to the field later today? I think maybe 3 or lesser...
For the record, Milan played more games in 2003, 2005 and 2007 (when they made the final on all 3 occasions - winning twice - and finished comfortably within the top 4 in Serie A) than they did this season."
I think you seem to confuse that the Premier league is like the Italian league... The premiership isn't a help to the English clubs cos its far more physically demanding compare to the Italian league... There are far more running, and also more robust challenged than the Italian league... The referees are also far more lenient compare to the other leagues in Europe... And before 2004, Italian league only compress of 18 teams and probably a Cup competition... So you could easily see the difference...
I don't "sit on the fence", I have made myself very clear from the start that i am pleased with the result, accept players like Anderson was rested for good reasons, and accept the way the match was played from United's point of view considering the number of matches they will have to engage within this next 6 days. Its you who cannot seem to make up your mind of where you want to stand. Condemning them for not getting an away goal (like its so easy infront of 90,000 hostile fans), condemning the way they set out to play counter attacking style... (Like if they played attacking style they would sure 100% win). Don't forget, they went to Roma and attack and ended up losing 2-1.
The objective to highlight about Porto and Monaco is simple... That teams that you don't fancy can also be genuine Champions League contenders... Of course you won't buy it cos you won't even give them half a chance but they have prove that it is still very much possible and not totally an impossible thing.
Ok, lets see... you mentioned "United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result" and your example again another weird one... My question to you is... Do you think united had a divine right to score or get a draw in nou camp? or Do you think Barcelona had a divine right to win at the nou camp? Well, i am not sure about you but my answer is No... If your answer is a Yes or No, either way you have already contradict yourself by saying they should have got an away goal, 0-0 is a bad result... Pick a side and stand will you cos your exam theory seem more suitable for Barcelona than United since they have just won it 2 yrs back... United was already 9 yrs ago.
Just because I said United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result, does it? Look, if you believed you could score 80 in an exam (on the basis of your ability and consistency in having done so in the past) and fail to do so in a particular exam does not necessarily mean you should be pleased, should you? Does that then mean you have a divine right to score an 80? Apparently, your incoherence is what's causing you to "sit on the fence".
Alright since now that you are stating Barce is a big club... I guess equal to United is size and everything else... So what give you the idea that a club like United stature should go there and win or get an away goal? Wasn't a lose a more likelier result? Since they are as big a club as United, so why should they fear them? I find your reasoning rather silly... I am quoting you ok, don't come back and say i asked this question later...
My point was - and still is - a club of United's stature shouldn't be settling for just a draw at the Nou Camp (especially a scoreless one) in view of the precarious position it'd leave United in in the overall context of the tie - what do you not understand?
I do not understand? Well, i tell what i do not understand... If they cannot get a goal away from home, what do you expect them to do? Rob, Steal? They even had a penalty and they missed... So what can they do apart from leaving with a scoreless draw the next best result you tell me? Rob, Steal, Beg? It is ridiculous isn't it... If your emplower don't give you a rise what can you do? Rise your salary yourself? Silly isn't it!
Ok, Keane... Lets get this straight... your comment on Keane started at...
Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
And not before this point in time. My answer to you is you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... He was isolated from the rest of the players a few days after that match and it was only about 2 weeks after that Boro match he was removed. The team only came together and performed better after he left. I never mentioned anything about his time before that Boro match. Anyway, Keane is just a player... what does he know about management at that time? What does he know about why the board has to make some decisions they made? Man United was a PLC then and not a privately own club... They had responsibilities to the Directors, the small sharholders, the Stock market as they were a listed company then... Keane was just a retiring player who had all the wants from his own dimension as a player... He was behaving like a 10 yrs old who just wanted his toys but was he aware the job the parents needed to do before he can get his toys? I guess not...
Lastly, I just like to say to you is... If you cannot be the best, then don't delude yourself that you can be the best or is the best... The mental duress of living in an existence of denial is far more miserable than settling for second best...
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Man you are really weird... I asked you this question? "why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea!" this question? You serious? I asked you this silly question? Let me tell you, i was merely quoting you from your last post on page 4 first paragraph... Go and take a look, its still there... You were the one that was actually asking me to explain, explain what? You think i am George Gomaz is it... why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash and my replied was this (1st post 2nd paragraph on page 5)
Well, since you asked... when you think of it, its common logic isn't it... We don't need a rocket scientist to tell us why Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup... Right? You ask yourself would you exchange your brand new latest PC for an old Pentium 2 one? I think the answer is very simple right even my 12 yrs old nephew will know...
So now football is a competitive game to you right... So you should also understand that in every competitive sports upsets and shock results are very common isn't it? So what right does your so called "big sides" have that they should be winning everything or every smaller clubs? Arsenal beat AC Milan in Milan, people saw it as an upset... Roma eliminated Real Madrid, that is seen as a shock result... So why can't United be "held" to a draw at nou camp? Its just part of the game... Though i know you are old enough but i still think there is a need to tell you to grow up man... If you are so called disappointed or upset or just frustrated that United couldn't win or scored an away goal or played to a counter attacking style, let me tell you... you are weird... I have already said earlier why... Then you came up with...
What can you not accept? For the record, they were not "unfortunate" not to score as far as I'm concerne...
So this is your opinion? Well I have already said ealier and i will say it again... It just so happens that they couldn't get the away goal... You think they don't want it? Like i said earlier, If you could to be paid like our minister you would want that too right but you tried and couldn't you will have to settle for lesser right or not? Or you shoot yourself in the head and die? The point here is they tried, they even had a penalty but could not score... And when you can't even score from a penalty, it is unfortunate...
Ok now we get to the FA cup... Ok, you pick the big 4 to show us the "by the law of averages" thing... The FA cup competition commenced in 1871... to date it is around 136 yrs since the first winner was crowned, so the 4 clubs you used to back up your theory wins 32 amongst themselves all these years... So if you were to take that into prospective, They have manage to win 23.5% out of 100%. This is lesser than one quarter of the titles won... So what about the other 3 quarters, the other 76.5% ? Well... let just say they were won by smaller clubs shall we... Cos this year, we will have another "smaller club" winning it again...
"What's the whole chunk about you citing Liverpool and Milan to begin with? On what basis are you making the claims that those two sides triumphed with a "fresher" team? Did Liverpool/Milan play fewer games in the respective seasons they won the Champions League?
Well i think the whole world can see and knows that before an important CL match, many or maybe even all the regular players are rested... the second strings players are used... Anyway, playing the same number of matches doesn't equal the same amount on matches a player plays... Its just shows that the club played equal number of matched thats all, it doesn't tell you who was playing and who wasn't... Would you like to bet how many of Pool players who played on Tue will take to the field later today? I think maybe 3 or lesser...
For the record, Milan played more games in 2003, 2005 and 2007 (when they made the final on all 3 occasions - winning twice - and finished comfortably within the top 4 in Serie A) than they did this season."
I think you seem to confuse that the Premier league is like the Italian league... The premiership isn't a help to the English clubs cos its far more physically demanding compare to the Italian league... There are far more running, and also more robust challenged than the Italian league... The referees are also far more lenient compare to the other leagues in Europe... And before 2004, Italian league only compress of 18 teams and probably a Cup competition... So you could easily see the difference...
I don't "sit on the fence", I have made myself very clear from the start that i am pleased with the result, accept players like Anderson was rested for good reasons, and accept the way the match was played from United's point of view considering the number of matches they will have to engage within this next 6 days. Its you who cannot seem to make up your mind of where you want to stand. Condemning them for not getting an away goal (like its so easy infront of 90,000 hostile fans), condemning the way they set out to play counter attacking style... (Like if they played attacking style they would sure 100% win). Don't forget, they went to Roma and attack and ended up losing 2-1.
The objective to highlight about Porto and Monaco is simple... That teams that you don't fancy can also be genuine Champions League contenders... Of course you won't buy it cos you won't even give them half a chance but they have prove that it is still very much possible and not totally an impossible thing.
Ok, lets see... you mentioned "United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result" and your example again another weird one... My question to you is... Do you think united had a divine right to score or get a draw in nou camp? or Do you think Barcelona had a divine right to win at the nou camp? Well, i am not sure about you but my answer is No... If your answer is a Yes or No, either way you have already contradict yourself by saying they should have got an away goal, 0-0 is a bad result... Pick a side and stand will you cos your exam theory seem more suitable for Barcelona than United since they have just won it 2 yrs back... United was already 9 yrs ago.
Just because I said United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result, does it? Look, if you believed you could score 80 in an exam (on the basis of your ability and consistency in having done so in the past) and fail to do so in a particular exam does not necessarily mean you should be pleased, should you? Does that then mean you have a divine right to score an 80? Apparently, your incoherence is what's causing you to "sit on the fence".
Alright since now that you are stating Barce is a big club... I guess equal to United is size and everything else... So what give you the idea that a club like United stature should go there and win or get an away goal? Wasn't a lose a more likelier result? Since they are as big a club as United, so why should they fear them? I find your reasoning rather silly... I am quoting you ok, don't come back and say i asked this question later...
My point was - and still is - a club of United's stature shouldn't be settling for just a draw at the Nou Camp (especially a scoreless one) in view of the precarious position it'd leave United in in the overall context of the tie - what do you not understand?
I do not understand? Well, i tell what i do not understand... If they cannot get a goal away from home, what do you expect them to do? Rob, Steal? They even had a penalty and they missed... So what can they do apart from leaving with a scoreless draw the next best result you tell me? Rob, Steal, Beg? It is ridiculous isn't it... If your emplower don't give you a rise what can you do? Rise your salary yourself? Silly isn't it!
Ok, Keane... Lets get this straight... your comment on Keane started at...
Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
And not before this point in time. My answer to you is you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... He was isolated from the rest of the players a few days after that match and it was only about 2 weeks after that Boro match he was removed. The team only came together and performed better after he left. I never mentioned anything about his time before that Boro match. Anyway, Keane is just a player... what does he know about management at that time? What does he know about why the board has to make some decisions they made? Man United was a PLC then and not a privately own club... They had responsibilities to the Directors, the small sharholders, the Stock market as they were a listed company then... Keane was just a retiring player who had all the wants from his own dimension as a player... He was behaving like a 10 yrs old who just wanted his toys but was he aware the job the parents needed to do before he can get his toys? I guess not...
Lastly, I just like to say to you is... If you cannot be the best, then don't delude yourself that you can be the best or is the best... The mental duress of living in an existence of denial is far more miserable than settling for second best...
Well i think the whole world can see and knows that before an important CL match, many or maybe even all the regular players are rested... the second strings players are used... Anyway, playing the same number of matches doesn't equal the same amount on matches a player plays... Its just shows that the club played equal number of matched thats all, it doesn't tell you who was playing and who wasn't... Would you like to bet how many of Pool players who played on Tue will take to the field later today? I think maybe 3 or lesser...
What do you mean the "whole world can see and knows"? Obviously I don't and neither would tonnes of people who take your word at face value. For a start, in this day and age, do you still have a rigid starting XI where you'd categorically say a certain 11 are unquestionably the manager's first choice? To drive home your point of hapless contradiction, 8 players who played some part in the Fulham match prior to the first leg actually started in the CL semi-final. Similarly, 8 players who featured some part against Wigan for Chelsea also starred in the same CL semi-final clash. 10 players who featured for Man Utd against Blackburn also took to the field against Barcelona. So, where are you trying to take your argument to? And that's a non-starter for me anyway. Considering the squad size of the bigger sides and their bigger budget, what excuse have they got to be talking about fatigue when they've actually got far bigger squads (with players of higher quality) to actually cope with a better squad-to-number-of-games ratio than the lesser sides...
I think you seem to confuse that the Premier league is like the Italian league... The premiership isn't a help to the English clubs cos its far more physically demanding compare to the Italian league... There are far more running, and also more robust challenged than the Italian league... The referees are also far more lenient compare to the other leagues in Europe... And before 2004, Italian league only compress of 18 teams and probably a Cup competition... So you could easily see the difference...
I don't "sit on the fence", I have made myself very clear from the start that i am pleased with the result, accept players like Anderson was rested for good reasons, and accept the way the match was played from United's point of view considering the number of matches they will have to engage within this next 6 days. Its you who cannot seem to make up your mind of where you want to stand. Condemning them for not getting an away goal (like its so easy infront of 90,000 hostile fans), condemning the way they set out to play counter attacking style... (Like if they played attacking style they would sure 100% win). Don't forget, they went to Roma and attack and ended up losing 2-1.
The objective to highlight about Porto and Monaco is simple... That teams that you don't fancy can also be genuine Champions League contenders... Of course you won't buy it cos you won't even give them half a chance but they have prove that it is still very much possible and not totally an impossible thing.
Ok, lets see... you mentioned "United had no divine right at the Nou Camp does not render a 0-0 a good result" and your example again another weird one... My question to you is... Do you think united had a divine right to score or get a draw in nou camp? or Do you think Barcelona had a divine right to win at the nou camp? Well, i am not sure about you but my answer is No... If your answer is a Yes or No, either way you have already contradict yourself by saying they should have got an away goal, 0-0 is a bad result... Pick a side and stand will you cos your exam theory seem more suitable for Barcelona than United since they have just won it 2 yrs back... United was already 9 yrs ago.
If anything, I think you seem to be reluctant to come to terms with the fact you just can't churn out excuses time and again to defend the indefensible. So we're back to the "we're the exceptional, one-in-a-trillion aberration" tag which could conveniently be used to justify just about everything? Seriously, what crap are you on about it being more physically demanding and having more lenient referees? Why not extend the argument further by suggesting the climate in England is much worse than that of anywhere else?
If there's an iota of contradiction you perceive to come from me, it's high time you went back to elementary school and polish your rudimentary english. Apparently, going by your daft logic, nobody should aspire to be the best as playing haphazardly and settling for a draw should be acceptable simply because nobody has a divine right to win. If you're going to use every 1-in-a-trillion aberration to justify the excuses you're going to churn out, why not advocate playing anti-football and just sit back and defend a 0-0 lead in every game (instead of just against Roma)? After all, each time you attack risk being counter-attacked at the other end. So what's new about such garb? Are you that dense?
And your Monaco and Porto examples still prove nothing. Given the fact there is a theoretical chance for anyone in the competition to win it, a team doesn't become a genuine CL contender just because they win (why else would you have terms like favourites and underdogs?). If it does, you should get your head checked because every team out there would obviously qualify as a genuine contender so long as they're in the competition. Extending this logic further, the sportsbooks should price every team up with the same odds because they all should stand an equal chance since clubs, big and small, are all genuine contenders. Clearly, the stats don't back you up on that one - unless you can explain, with some sense, how the G14 clubs have won more CL's combined than any other 14 clubs you can put together...
Your logic is getting more and more incomprehensible by the minute. Just because United have no divine right to win, does that mean they should regard a draw/defeat as a good result? At no point did I suggest United have a divine right to win - do you understand this simple statement? Let's go back to the exam analogy to illustrate things. Do you have a divine right to score 80 for every exam you take? In the event that you regard you don't, are you suggesting nobody should aim for 80 just because you think that's beyond you? Which part of this can you not reconcile with? Your misguided and warped logic is essentially what deters you from understanding "my stand", and not the geist of what has been said. If you're having trouble understanding that essentially, I suggest you consult someone else as to what I have just said.
Alright since now that you are stating Barce is a big club... I guess equal to United is size and everything else... So what give you the idea that a club like United stature should go there and win or get an away goal? Wasn't a lose a more likelier result? Since they are as big a club as United, so why should they fear them? I find your reasoning rather silly... I am quoting you ok, don't come back and say i asked this question later...
I'm saying a club of United's stature should go anywhere and play to win (for ease of comprehension, playing to win does not necessarily translate to winning; at least, it demonstrates the intent), nevermind Barcelona or Rochdale! Your problem is you can't understand half a word of what I am saying, not quoting me. Apparently, you can't seem to live with my view that United shouldn't need to alter their gameplan drastically against bigger teams...
I do not understand? Well, i tell what i do not understand... If they cannot get a goal away from home, what do you expect them to do? Rob, Steal? They even had a penalty and they missed... So what can they do apart from leaving with a scoreless draw the next best result you tell me? Rob, Steal, Beg? It is ridiculous isn't it... If your emplower don't give you a rise what can you do? Rise your salary yourself? Silly isn't it!
No offence, but you must either be dense or deluded to be typing the chunk here (especially the part in green). Can you understand the difference between intent and action? Can you then understand an intent does not necessarily lead to a successful action? I'm criticising them for playing defensive primarily and here you're harping about them not being able to get an away goal. Look, in simpler terms, I am saying the bloke sitting next to you in class who chooses not to study does not deserve any sympathy if he fails his exams and in fact should be condemned for not having even made the concerted effort to try. Obviously, such a case would be quite different from another diligent student who has made a concerted effort to study, but still fall short due to a lack of ability. Get it?
Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
My point to you here is not what the aftermath of the 4-1 defeat at Boro was. Rather, did Keane's ambitions and drive make a difference over the years? More importantly, was his assessment right? For the record, if you aren't aware - even in the aftermath of that particular debacle where he lashed out at certain players, you may wish to note thay a handful of United players actually came out backing him instead of counter-criticising him (Ferdinand and van der Sar being the more prominent and senior figures). Once again, it seems for you, any sort of inaction(or lack of action) is acceptable so long as that action seems to entail some sort of risk factor as a consequence.
Go over the two quotes I cited from him in 2001 and 2002. So was he right to suggest, in harsh and blunt terms, the United side then was crap (by United's standards here...not by Derby's before you decide to jump the gun and tell me United still consistently finished in the top 3)?
Keane may just be a player, but does that mean he's not entitled to his views just because it's harsh and controversial? What business is it of his if others can't handle the truth? It's one thing for him to be talking trash (and I wish he had been). It's quite another for him to be saying something so evident to the informed which no one in a similar position to his quite had the courage of saying...
If you can't be the best and don't even bother trying and settle for being a loser, you can go ahead and settle for that as a scant consolation. If you can't live with the fact that trying to be the best does not necessarily mean you'd succeed and choose to take the easy way out in life and use all kinds of excuses to justify your incompetence and no need for effort, you too are entitled to live that way. If anything, that's living in denial at its zenith, which you seem to have mastered quite well...
-
LOL u guys trying to outdo each other in essay writing?
jeez its perfectly fine to hav different views and opinions and be passionate about the club... a little discussion is alrite as long as it stays cool.. all of us are here only because of one reason..
so pls keep that reason in mind, as fans of Manchester United.
-
What do you mean the "whole world can see and knows"? Obviously I don't and neither would tonnes of people who take your word at face value. For a start, in this day and age, do you still have a rigid starting XI where you'd categorically say a certain 11 are unquestionably the manager's first choice? To drive home your point of hapless contradiction, 8 players who played some part in the Fulham match prior to the first leg actually started in the CL semi-final. Similarly, 8 players who featured some part against Wigan for Chelsea also starred in the same CL semi-final clash. 10 players who featured for Man Utd against Blackburn also took to the field against Barcelona. So, where are you trying to take your argument to? And that's a non-starter for me anyway. Considering the squad size of the bigger sides and their bigger budget, what excuse have they got to be talking about fatigue when they've actually got far bigger squads (with players of higher quality) to actually cope with a better squad-to-number-of-games ratio than the lesser sides...
All i can say to this is either you are in denial or you are just oblivious to whats going on for the past few years already... Yes there is such a thing as a first eleven. Players like the Gerrard, the Torres, the Reina and the Kuyt types... Don't use Man United and Chelsea as an example, cos they are challenging for the title... This part only started because it was highlighted that teams that don't have League title commitments have the chance to rest players... Therefore they don't qualify as they have no choice. Just ask anyone here in the fourm if this is true if you are still "unaware" of it.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on who were the 8 players that you mentioned took part in the Fulham match that played in the Chelsea match as well... And you can start with the first 11 and see how many started. While at it, you can also check out the AC Milan team just before they played United in last season's CL... You could be surprise... Anyway, this was Pool line-up for last night's match against Birmingham...
Liverpool:
Reina, Finnan, Hyypia, Skrtel, Riise (Insua 64), Pennant, Plessis, Lucas, Benayoun, Crouch, Voronin.
Subs Not Used: Itandje, Gerrard, Kuyt, Carragher.How many who started / played last night do you think will start on Wed... 8?
Ok, Lets get this straight... my comment on Keane is on this last sentence from you...
And before you decide to quote me out of context, I was talking about Keano's comments in general - the fact he never let his guard down and always demanded the best from those around him. Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
And not before that time correct? And my replied was... You are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... I mentioned that he was isolated from the rest of the players and a few days after that match (or about 2 weeks) to be more exact, he was told to leave. In what part does the question suggest you meant anything before Boro? Coming out later with something else before that period in your follow up post is not the way to go... You don't change your goalpost after an argument have been set on a period... Which part of "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro" suggest before that time?
So you still credited him for their late charge long after he left?
Anyway, since you have mentioned it later, i will still try to give it an reply...
Keane may just be a player, but does that mean he's not entitled to his views just because it's harsh and controversial? What business is it of his if others can't handle the truth? It's one thing for him to be talking trash (and I wish he had been). It's quite another for him to be saying something so evident to the informed which no one in a similar position to his quite had the courage of saying...
2001: ON BREAKING UP UNITED TEAM AFTER DEFEAT AT BAYERN MUNICH
"The players gave it their all but we are just not good enough. You have to face the facts and I think the signs have been there this season and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team."2002: ON WINNING THE TREBLE IN 1999
"The champagne was flowing, people were going crazy, but my belief was we had been lucky against a Bayern Munich team that bottled it. We should have bought big after winning the Treble, gone for the best, and let those who didn't care if they never won another trophy join the sort of clubs that don't win any."Of course he is entitled just like anyone else... But disrupting the team isn't the right way to do it. Anyway, just for the argument sake... I have already pointed out to you earlier Keane is just a player... what does he know about management at that time, even now? What does he know about why the board has to make some decisions they made? Man United was a PLC then and not a privately own club... They had responsibilities to the Directors, the small sharholders, the Stock market as they were a listed company at that time... Keane was just a retiring player who had all the wants from his own dimension as a player... The way he was behaving its like a 10 yrs old who just wanted his toys but wasn't aware the job the parents needed to do before he can get his toys?
The question here is...
Does he know what the CEO needs to do before he can buy big?
Does he know that the CEO also needs to do his main job and that is increase club profits, promote the club as well as balance the books?
And even if he wanted to buy, United at that time was a PLC, that means he needed to get the Directors approval in order to buy the big amount Keane wanted.
Every end of a financial year he need to report to the Directors and the stock exchange regarding the health of the club... And if its not favourable, he can be held accountable and lose his job?
The first and foremost job the CEO needs to do is keep the club in the black... and not bring it into the reds.
Again, what does Keane know about all these? Has he been in a executive level before? Like i said earlier, he had his one dimension view to things from the ground level... There was no huge Tv money coming in to support his requests during those days... He was the highest paid player in United and had a contract that stated no other player would earn higher than him. Meaning if they wanted to pay another player higher they had to increase his too. This wasn't a problem only confine to United... During those days, almost every club had this problem... Who knew Chelsea was in debts until Roman Abramovich bought the club... Gerrard has always had the same opinion but he isn't that extreme with his comments... He just said he may consider leaving if the club don't improve. Keane's way was too extreme and wasn't good for the whole squad... We later came to know that Liverpool, Newcastle and even Arsenal who were taking a loan to build their stadium were all in debts to the tune of between $80m to $300m... Keane should leave all this to the management level cos its not his area of expertise... Going around ranting isn't helping matters, it just make it worse.
If anything, I think you seem to be reluctant to come to terms with the fact you just can't churn out excuses time and again to defend the indefensible. So we're back to the "we're the exceptional, one-in-a-trillion aberration" tag which could conveniently be used to justify just about everything? Seriously, what crap are you on about it being more physically demanding and having more lenient referees? Why not extend the argument further by suggesting the climate in England is much worse than that of anywhere else?
Its not an excuse, its a fact. I have come across many reports and heard many commentaries about players coming over to the EPL from Europe saying that when they first came over, they were not used to the quick pace of the game and needed sometime to get use to the pace as well as the referees being less protective to them and more acceptable to robust challenged...
If there's an iota of contradiction you perceive to come from me, it's high time you went back to elementary school and polish your rudimentary english. Apparently, going by your daft logic, nobody should aspire to be the best as playing haphazardly and settling for a draw should be acceptable simply because nobody has a divine right to win. If you're going to use every 1-in-a-trillion aberration to justify the excuses you're going to churn out, why not advocate playing anti-football and just sit back and defend a 0-0 lead in every game (instead of just against Roma)? After all, each time you attack risk being counter-attacked at the other end. So what's new about such garb? Are you that dense?
l have said all i can to you about it and if you can't get it into your head then how about this... Its just part of another football tactical strategy that some top managers employ in certain matches... The Italians were probably the best at it... and were very successful with it... On the other hand, all attacking like there is no tomorrow might get you no tomorrow like Kelvin Keegan's Newcastle in the 90s. So its up to you to prefer what you want provided you are the manager... Otherwise, you just have to live with it when they have made their decisions...
And your Monaco and Porto examples still prove nothing. Given the fact there is a theoretical chance for anyone in the competition to win it, a team doesn't become a genuine CL contender just because they win (why else would you have terms like favourites and underdogs?). If it does, you should get your head checked because every team out there would obviously qualify as a genuine contender so long as they're in the competition. Extending this logic further, the sportsbooks should price every team up with the same odds because they all should stand an equal chance since clubs, big and small, are all genuine contenders. Clearly, the stats don't back you up on that one - unless you can explain, with some sense, how the G14 clubs have won more CL's combined than any other 14 clubs you can put together...
Hahaha... ok lah i don't use Monaco and Porto... The reason there are favourites and underdogs is because clearly on paper it could favour one team to the other. But football isn't played on paper does it? So there lies the reason... Underdogs also have their chances... Was Denmark expected to win the Euro 92? No, actually they didn't even qualified but because for some political reason that Yugoslavia was banned they were invited back in to, how would you say it... Made up the numbers? Yup, they were called in to "make up the numbers" so that the group stages could be played in proper but they went on to shock the continent by beating the reigning world champions Germany in the final. How about Greece, who didn't even win a single match the first time they qualified and won the Euro 2004 when they qualify for the 2nd time... And you want to know something... the big teams like the Germany, the Italy and the Spain all didn't made pass the first group stages. Even title holder France was send packing in the quarter finals by non other than Greece themselves. So can i use Denmark and Greece?
The Champions League is only 52 yrs old and you want to take 18 teams to count? Are you aware the CL or The European Cup as it was known back then started with only 16 clubs playing in it? I have used the FA cup as an example cos the competition commenced in 1871... and to date it is around 136 yrs old and earlier you mentioned Barnsley... so you pick the big 4 to show us the "by the law of averages" thing... I have clearly showed you the FA cup numbers and percentage of the big 4 winning is 23.5% and the smaller clubs taking the balance 76.5%... So now you want to take 18 clubs in a 16 club tournament? Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.
I'm saying a club of United's stature should go anywhere and play to win (for ease of comprehension, playing to win does not necessarily translate to winning; at least, it demonstrates the intent), nevermind Barcelona or Rochdale! Your problem is you can't understand half a word of what I am saying, not quoting me. Apparently, you can't seem to live with my view that United shouldn't need to alter their gameplan drastically against bigger teams...
Ok, all these also come under the same category as... Its just part of another football tactical strategy that some top managers employ in certain matches against certain teams... (For the record, United went to Roma last season with the kind of intent you mentioned and ended up losing 1-2) And it wasn't pleasant... So, with a these few words its so simple... "Play to win" or "With intent" And you will win?
No offence, but you must either be dense or deluded to be typing the chunk here (especially the part in green). Can you understand the difference between intent and action? Can you then understand an intent does not necessarily lead to a successful action? I'm criticising them for playing defensive primarily and here you're harping about them not being able to get an away goal. Look, in simpler terms, I am saying the bloke sitting next to you in class who chooses not to study does not deserve any sympathy if he fails his exams and in fact should be condemned for not having even made the concerted effort to try. Obviously, such a case would be quite different from another diligent student who has made a concerted effort to study, but still fall short due to a lack of ability. Get it?
Non taken... so you are aware that with such intent you can also lose and possibly big too? You don't take the surroundings into consideration? The disadvantage against you? Just go with the intent and everything will be better? It could also be a recipe for suicidal like i have mentioned to you Kelvin Keegan. Keegan's team had lots of intent of playing his usual stuff.... He wasn't flexible, his 90s squad only had intent to win and win big... But intent alone cannot last when conditions wasn't right for his type of football. Your example is not suitable in this sense... It too straight forward, rather too simplistic. Football is not that straight forward... Like i have said earlier, its not won on paper. There are 22 men... Sometimes even if you want to push forward, you are push back... your opponent could be much stronger with advantage against you. Therefore tactical strategy comes into play again. Perhaps I can put it this way maybe it would be clearer to you. If the bloke sitting next to you in class must take 9 subjects but is only strong in 3, average in 3 and poor in 3... What does he do with the limited time before the exams to make sure he don't fail any? Strategic planning of time allocation may be required here.
Finally, are you still convince that was the one who had the audacity to ask you why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea!? Which part of your far superior knowledge of the english language give you the impression i was asking you this audacious question?
-
sometimes its not that players dont want to win. Sometimes its tactical error or fatigue. Or maybe opponents are more fired up. Chelsea and barca are obviously more fired up because barca has nothing to play for now except the UCL. Chelsea, well, they need a win and they dont want to lose their home record to manutd. In some sense, chelsea's players were definitely more fired up.
And man united dont always accomplish what they want.
Eg beat chelsea at stamford bridge and thwart their home record. In arsenal's unbeatable season, manutd also fail to beat arsenal. They only break it after 49 unbeaten runs in the premier league but its too late already. Record already set. In that match, manutd are definitely more fired up to break arsenal's 49 record than arsenal is to continue the record. (Plus penalty tend to turn the game around for many impt matches)
-
All i can say to this is either you are in denial or you are just oblivious to whats going on for the past few years already... Yes there is such a thing as a first eleven. Players like the Gerrard, the Torres, the Reina and the Kuyt types... Don't use Man United and Chelsea as an example, cos they are challenging for the title... This part only started because it was highlighted that teams that don't have League title commitments have the chance to rest players... Therefore they don't qualify as they have no choice. Just ask anyone here in the fourm if this is true if you are still "unaware" of it.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on who were the 8 players that you mentioned took part in the Fulham match that played in the Chelsea match as well... And you can start with the first 11 and see how many started. While at it, you can also check out the AC Milan team just before they played United in last season's CL... You could be surprise... Anyway, this was Pool line-up for last night's match against Birmingham...
Liverpool:
Reina, Finnan, Hyypia, Skrtel, Riise (Insua 64), Pennant, Plessis, Lucas, Benayoun, Crouch, Voronin.
Subs Not Used: Itandje, Gerrard, Kuyt, Carragher.How many who started / played last night do you think will start on Wed... 8?
Are you on another round of new-found self-contradiction crusade? Are you living in denial or am I lying to suggest 8 players who participated in the league matches in the preceding weekend (before the first leg) featured in the first-leg ofthe Liverpool-Chelsea tie? What's your definition of "start"? So I suppose players who actually play some part in a match are actually "rested" too? So would you like to name me the first choice starting XI for both Liverpool and Chelsea which, form and fitness permitting, would be the side that takes to the field at every reasonable opportunity? Or can you not live with the fact football has become a squad game in the modern age?
Ok, Lets get this straight... my comment on Keane is on this last sentence from you...
And before you decide to quote me out of context, I was talking about Keano's comments in general - the fact he never let his guard down and always demanded the best from those around him. Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
And not before that time correct? And my replied was... You are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... I mentioned that he was isolated from the rest of the players and a few days after that match (or about 2 weeks) to be more exact, he was told to leave. In what part does the question suggest you meant anything before Boro? Coming out later with something else before that period in your follow up post is not the way to go... You don't change your goalpost after an argument have been set on a period... Which part of "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro" suggest before that time?
So you still credited him for their late charge long after he left?
Anyway, since you have mentioned it later, i will still try to give it an reply...
Keane may just be a player, but does that mean he's not entitled to his views just because it's harsh and controversial? What business is it of his if others can't handle the truth? It's one thing for him to be talking trash (and I wish he had been). It's quite another for him to be saying something so evident to the informed which no one in a similar position to his quite had the courage of saying...
2001: ON BREAKING UP UNITED TEAM AFTER DEFEAT AT BAYERN MUNICH
"The players gave it their all but we are just not good enough. You have to face the facts and I think the signs have been there this season and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team."2002: ON WINNING THE TREBLE IN 1999
"The champagne was flowing, people were going crazy, but my belief was we had been lucky against a Bayern Munich team that bottled it. We should have bought big after winning the Treble, gone for the best, and let those who didn't care if they never won another trophy join the sort of clubs that don't win any."Of course he is entitled just like anyone else... But disrupting the team isn't the right way to do it. Anyway, just for the argument sake... I have already pointed out to you earlier Keane is just a player... what does he know about management at that time, even now? What does he know about why the board has to make some decisions they made? Man United was a PLC then and not a privately own club... They had responsibilities to the Directors, the small sharholders, the Stock market as they were a listed company at that time... Keane was just a retiring player who had all the wants from his own dimension as a player... The way he was behaving its like a 10 yrs old who just wanted his toys but wasn't aware the job the parents needed to do before he can get his toys?
The question here is...
Does he know what the CEO needs to do before he can buy big?
Does he know that the CEO also needs to do his main job and that is increase club profits, promote the club as well as balance the books?
And even if he wanted to buy, United at that time was a PLC, that means he needed to get the Directors approval in order to buy the big amount Keane wanted.
Every end of a financial year he need to report to the Directors and the stock exchange regarding the health of the club... And if its not favourable, he can be held accountable and lose his job?
The first and foremost job the CEO needs to do is keep the club in the black... and not bring it into the reds.
Again, what does Keane know about all these? Has he been in a executive level before? Like i said earlier, he had his one dimension view to things from the ground level... There was no huge Tv money coming in to support his requests during those days... He was the highest paid player in United and had a contract that stated no other player would earn higher than him. Meaning if they wanted to pay another player higher they had to increase his too. This wasn't a problem only confine to United... During those days, almost every club had this problem... Who knew Chelsea was in debts until Roman Abramovich bought the club... Gerrard has always had the same opinion but he isn't that extreme with his comments... He just said he may consider leaving if the club don't improve. Keane's way was too extreme and wasn't good for the whole squad... We later came to know that Liverpool, Newcastle and even Arsenal who were taking a loan to build their stadium were all in debts to the tune of between $80m to $300m... Keane should leave all this to the management level cos its not his area of expertise... Going around ranting isn't helping matters, it just make it worse.
Let's get this straight. I think the fact you've trouble with basic comprehension is something pretty well-established by now. What I said before Keane's comments on the 4-1 Boro debacle was simply if that particular episode you remember of Keane, then your memories of him is obviously very different from mine. And going by your limited memories from the glorious 90s, I'd be hard pushed to be convinced you've actually been following United for that long to recall anything substantial before the 2000s.
My point to you is, was he right in his assessment in the two quotes cited above? Who are you to decide his "ranting" makes things worse? By the same token, are you saying anyone who doesn't share your view "make things worse"? If he had been wrong, are you suggesting the period from 2002-2006 was one of the most glorious periods in United's illustrious history (with just 1 title and a couple of Cups to show for those lean years)? Suffice to say, if there was no substance to his rantings, it wouldn't make a hell lot of sense for Ferguson to have stuck by him for 12 years and had him skippered United for half that time when others have been shown the door for far "tamer" dissent (think Stam and van Nistelrooy, if not Beckham), would it? Just because you can't live with truth that is often harsh to the ears does not render any further demerit to the substance found in the truth, does it? Or can you also not live with that? The amazing thing here is, logic is lost on you to such an extent it beggars belief.
Save yourself the trouble of talking about a PLC and the modus operandi of a listed company. You have enough trouble trying to make sense of Keane's comments - you'd do well to just stick to it. Go over those quotes again - did he provide his feedback anywhere in them to insinuate he knew better when it came to running the club? Or was he simply talking about something that was related directly to the playing side of things? Just because you choose to draw a link between your fallacious understanding of a business model and some innocuous comments that had no bearing on the running of a PLC to begin with does not render his comments any less credible, does it? Going by your logic, am I supposed to believe David Gill should be the one making all the purchases and sales since even Ferguson would be ill-qualified to run the business side of things? Or are you back to your old-school "if you know nothing about it, you shouldn't comment" conservative folly?
Its not an excuse, its a fact. I have come across many reports and heard many commentaries about players coming over to the EPL from Europe saying that when they first came over, they were not used to the quick pace of the game and needed sometime to get use to the pace as well as the referees being less protective to them and more acceptable to robust challenged...
Really? How long did it take Henry, van Nistelrooy, Stam, Torres, Essien to make their mark in the Premiership? For every Shevchenkos you could think of, there's a Henry/van Nistelrooy/Stam/Torres/Essien to counter your argument. Is that still a "fact" then? So I suppose if you joined a new school, you'd give the excuse for poor performance in your first year or two on the basis that you're new to the environment/grading system/whatever-excuse-you-want-to-use? Then again, what's new regarding the usage of excuses to justify all your inadequacies?
l have said all i can to you about it and if you can't get it into your head then how about this... Its just part of another football tactical strategy that some top managers employ in certain matches... The Italians were probably the best at it... and were very successful with it... On the other hand, all attacking like there is no tomorrow might get you no tomorrow like Kelvin Keegan's Newcastle in the 90s. So its up to you to prefer what you want provided you are the manager... Otherwise, you just have to live with it when they have made their decisions...
Sure, Brazil and Italy have won world cups with grossly differing tactics. All said and done, they don't shoot themselves in the foot and take pride in settling for second, do you? Are you suggesting United are doing something right in Europe considering they set out to win the tournament each season and in the last 11 seasons when they have been a contender at the forefront, have only done so once? Or are you going back to the "if you know nothing, you shouldn't comment" argument in your defence?
Hahaha... ok lah i don't use Monaco and Porto... The reason there are favourites and underdogs is because clearly on paper it could favour one team to the other. But football isn't played on paper does it? So there lies the reason... Underdogs also have their chances... Was Denmark expected to win the Euro 92? No, actually they didn't even qualified but because for some political reason that Yugoslavia was banned they were invited back in to, how would you say it... Made up the numbers? Yup, they were called in to "make up the numbers" so that the group stages could be played in proper but they went on to shock the continent by beating the reigning world champions Germany in the final. How about Greece, who didn't even win a single match the first time they qualified and won the Euro 2004 when they qualify for the 2nd time... And you want to know something... the big teams like the Germany, the Italy and the Spain all didn't made pass the first group stages. Even title holder France was send packing in the quarter finals by non other than Greece themselves. So can i use Denmark and Greece?
Back to the question I have been asking since the dawn of this thread. Can you understand the likelihood of an event happening estimated by probability does not necessarily dictate a certainty? Why are you still going on about your one-in-a-trillion aberrations to mask your ignorance of simple statistics? To drive home this point, why don't I make you a wager : Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool combined will still amass more points than any other 4 teams over the course of the entire 2008/2009 season? Going by your logic, if Man Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool could lose to any team on any given day, surely it'd make sense for you to take on this offer since, with 16 other teams to choose from, you should be getting the longer end of the stick?
The Champions League is only 52 yrs old and you want to take 18 teams to count? Are you aware the CL or The European Cup as it was known back then started with only 16 clubs playing in it? I have used the FA cup as an example cos the competition commenced in 1871... and to date it is around 136 yrs old and earlier you mentioned Barnsley... so you pick the big 4 to show us the "by the law of averages" thing... I have clearly showed you the FA cup numbers and percentage of the big 4 winning is 23.5% and the smaller clubs taking the balance 76.5%... So now you want to take 18 clubs in a 16 club tournament? Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.
Are you sure you even know your elementary statistics? Let's ignore the old European Cup format and just factor in the Champions League then (which only came into effect in 94/95). The winners since then have been Ajax, Juventus, Dortmud, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Porto, Liverpool, Barcelona, AC Milan (only twice in those 13 seasons did the trophy not land in the hands of the G14 club). Does that still bode well for your "anything can happen argument"? You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
Non taken... so you are aware that with such intent you can also lose and possibly big too? You don't take the surroundings into consideration? The disadvantage against you? Just go with the intent and everything will be better? It could also be a recipe for suicidal like i have mentioned to you Kelvin Keegan. Keegan's team had lots of intent of playing his usual stuff.... He wasn't flexible, his 90s squad only had intent to win and win big... But intent alone cannot last when conditions wasn't right for his type of football. Your example is not suitable in this sense... It too straight forward, rather too simplistic. Football is not that straight forward... Like i have said earlier, its not won on paper. There are 22 men... Sometimes even if you want to push forward, you are push back... your opponent could be much stronger with advantage against you. Therefore tactical strategy comes into play again. Perhaps I can put it this way maybe it would be clearer to you. If the bloke sitting next to you in class must take 9 subjects but is only strong in 3, average in 3 and poor in 3... What does he do with the limited time before the exams to make sure he don't fail any? Strategic planning of time allocation may be required here.
Are you aware there's risk entailed in just about every course of action and decision you make in life? Going to school risks failure. Getting into a relationship risks breakup/divorce. Getting a job risks termination/retrenchment. So are you not going to go to school, find yourself a spouse or a job just because risk is a part and parcel of these endeavours?
For all the talk about football strategy, why don't you try explaining why haven't United done better than they have in Europe over the past decade? Just because "anything can happen" and you're willing to use that to console yourself in all your failings/shortcomings obviously isn't a very viable argument in football - managers and players have come and gone on the basis of incompetence where "anything can happen" simply doesn't hold much water.
Finally, are you still convince that was the one who had the audacity to ask you why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea!? Which part of your far superior knowledge of the english language give you the impression i was asking you this audacious question?
Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
Another bout of self-contradiction? Or are you going to claim ignorance of having typed the stuff in red?
-
Originally posted by FirePig:
sometimes its not that players dont want to win. Sometimes its tactical error or fatigue. Or maybe opponents are more fired up. Chelsea and barca are obviously more fired up because barca has nothing to play for now except the UCL. Chelsea, well, they need a win and they dont want to lose their home record to manutd. In some sense, chelsea's players were definitely more fired up.
And man united dont always accomplish what they want.
Eg beat chelsea at stamford bridge and thwart their home record. In arsenal's unbeatable season, manutd also fail to beat arsenal. They only break it after 49 unbeaten runs in the premier league but its too late already. Record already set. In that match, manutd are definitely more fired up to break arsenal's 49 record than arsenal is to continue the record. (Plus penalty tend to turn the game around for many impt matches)
Granted, that's what I've been saying from my first post here. The senseless defensive-minded drab we saw at the Nou Camp (and pretty much in evidence against Chelsea at phases of the match when it was level) was simply a silly strategy that has backfired and looks set to haunt United again on Tuesday.
To illustrate the difference, just look at how much more clinical United were in terms of penetration and depth against Chelsea after they went 2-1 down (having two efforts cleared off the link in under 8 minutes), compared to a lacklustre side hell-bent on defending the draw and not testing Petr Cech in the first half.
If failure to win against Barcelona and Chelsea isn't going to deter United from playing defensively, maybe Barcelona giving United the boot would...
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Granted, that's what I've been saying from my first post here. The senseless defensive-minded drab we saw at the Nou Camp (and pretty much in evidence against Chelsea at phases of the match when it was level) was simply a silly strategy that has backfired and looks set to haunt United again on Tuesday.
To illustrate the difference, just look at how much more clinical United were in terms of penetration and depth against Chelsea after they went 2-1 down (having two efforts cleared off the link in under 8 minutes), compared to a lacklustre side hell-bent on defending the draw and not testing Petr Cech in the first half.
If failure to win against Barcelona and Chelsea isn't going to deter United from playing defensively, maybe Barcelona giving United the boot would...
that's because at 2-1 up, chelsea change their stance and start defending. Manutd obviously will go out to attack. It doesnt matter whether manutd lose 2-1 or 3-1. Of course more manutd players can now afford to move up and attack. At 1-1, if they attack and chelsea counterattack and score, pple would scold ferguson for being stupid to throw away the 3points lead. Of course, i believe ferguson still play for a win against chelsea but with a realistic approach. (and not a either i win or you win approach) -
Originally posted by FirePig:
that's because at 2-1 up, chelsea change their stance and start defending. Manutd obviously will go out to attack. It doesnt matter whether manutd lose 2-1 or 3-1. Of course more manutd players can now afford to move up and attack. At 1-1, if they attack and chelsea counterattack and score, pple would scold ferguson for being stupid to throw away the 3points lead. Of course, i believe ferguson still play for a win against chelsea but with a realistic approach. (and not a either i win or you win approach)
Fair enough. Chelsea defending when they're ahead is one half of the equation. The other half stems from United attacking because they know they need to if they want to get something out of the game. I don't think you could say you saw that sort of endeavour at the Nou Camp on Wednesday - at least, I didn't. -
Sir Alex Ferguson's complaints about the standard of officiating at Manchester United's matches are unlikely to be eased by the appointment of Herbert Fandel for the second leg of the Champions League semi-final against Barcelona tomorrow night.
Fandel ranks as arguably Ferguson's least favourite referee, dating back to a 2-1 defeat to Porto in 2004 when Roy Keane was sent off and, at the final whistle, United's manager refused to shake hands with Jose Mourinho, then in charge of the Portuguese champions, because he was incensed about the home players' repeated diving.
Fandel also sent off Paul Scholes in the first leg of the Champions League quarter-final against Roma last season. Ferguson accused him at the time of favouring the home side - an allegation that was studied by Uefa's disciplinary department - and he made no attempt to hide his distrust of the German earlier this season when United played Sporting Lisbon.
Asked about Fandel's appointment, Ferguson put his head in his hands, sighing melodramatically, and asked: "Have we got a supply of Mogadon?" Ferguson and his assistant, Carlos Queiroz, already have a disciplinary hearing pending with the Football Association because of their criticisms of Martin Atkinson - and, in Ferguson's case, the referees' chief Keith Hackett - after United's 1-0 defeat to Portsmouth in the FA Cup quarter finals.
Both men intend to fight the charges and United are preparing a dossier of alleged refereeing errors - including footage from Saturday's defeat at Chelsea.
"In the last few weeks we've been knocked out of the FA Cup after not getting a penalty kick," said Ferguson. "There should have been a clear penalty kick at Middlesbrough from Mike Riley when a Boro player dived and saved the ball. And the same linesman we had today, Glenn Turner, disallowed Wayne Rooney when he was clean through and five yards onside.
Then last week at Blackburn, Rob Styles, who's turned down five penalty kicks for us this season, doesn't give us one out of three."Of Saturday's game, he added: "Cristiano Ronaldo was grappled almost to the floor by Michael Ballack (at a United corner) and it was a clear penalty kick. Then Michael Carrick went down in the same way, the referee (Alan Wiley) was right there and again he didn't give it."
Queiroz was equally forthright. "It must be necessary for a player to bring a gun and shoot one of our men in the box for us to get a penalty. The referee was five metres away from both incidents but he gives only one penalty. Some of the decisions in the last few weeks have damaged this club. We are not in the FA Cup final because of a bad decision. Against Barcelona in the Champions League, there should have been three penalties but only one was given. Something is wrong with football."
Aiyo, MU's luck with the MIB is lousy leh..
-
Originally posted by walesa:
All i can say to this is either you are in denial or you are just oblivious to whats going on for the past few years already... Yes there is such a thing as a first eleven. Players like the Gerrard, the Torres, the Reina and the Kuyt types... Don't use Man United and Chelsea as an example, cos they are challenging for the title... This part only started because it was highlighted that teams that don't have League title commitments have the chance to rest players... Therefore they don't qualify as they have no choice. Just ask anyone here in the fourm if this is true if you are still "unaware" of it.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on who were the 8 players that you mentioned took part in the Fulham match that played in the Chelsea match as well... And you can start with the first 11 and see how many started. While at it, you can also check out the AC Milan team just before they played United in last season's CL... You could be surprise... Anyway, this was Pool line-up for last night's match against Birmingham...
Liverpool:
Reina, Finnan, Hyypia, Skrtel, Riise (Insua 64), Pennant, Plessis, Lucas, Benayoun, Crouch, Voronin.
Subs Not Used: Itandje, Gerrard, Kuyt, Carragher.How many who started / played last night do you think will start on Wed... 8?
Are you on another round of new-found self-contradiction crusade? Are you living in denial or am I lying to suggest 8 players who participated in the league matches in the preceding weekend (before the first leg) featured in the first-leg ofthe Liverpool-Chelsea tie? What's your definition of "start"? So I suppose players who actually play some part in a match are actually "rested" too? So would you like to name me the first choice starting XI for both Liverpool and Chelsea which, form and fitness permitting, would be the side that takes to the field at every reasonable opportunity? Or can you not live with the fact football has become a squad game in the modern age?
Ok, Lets get this straight... my comment on Keane is on this last sentence from you...
And before you decide to quote me out of context, I was talking about Keano's comments in general - the fact he never let his guard down and always demanded the best from those around him. Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?
And not before that time correct? And my replied was... You are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in... I mentioned that he was isolated from the rest of the players and a few days after that match (or about 2 weeks) to be more exact, he was told to leave. In what part does the question suggest you meant anything before Boro? Coming out later with something else before that period in your follow up post is not the way to go... You don't change your goalpost after an argument have been set on a period... Which part of "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro" suggest before that time?
So you still credited him for their late charge long after he left?
Anyway, since you have mentioned it later, i will still try to give it an reply...
Keane may just be a player, but does that mean he's not entitled to his views just because it's harsh and controversial? What business is it of his if others can't handle the truth? It's one thing for him to be talking trash (and I wish he had been). It's quite another for him to be saying something so evident to the informed which no one in a similar position to his quite had the courage of saying...
2001: ON BREAKING UP UNITED TEAM AFTER DEFEAT AT BAYERN MUNICH
"The players gave it their all but we are just not good enough. You have to face the facts and I think the signs have been there this season and maybe it's time to move on. Maybe it's the end of the road for this team."2002: ON WINNING THE TREBLE IN 1999
"The champagne was flowing, people were going crazy, but my belief was we had been lucky against a Bayern Munich team that bottled it. We should have bought big after winning the Treble, gone for the best, and let those who didn't care if they never won another trophy join the sort of clubs that don't win any."Of course he is entitled just like anyone else... But disrupting the team isn't the right way to do it. Anyway, just for the argument sake... I have already pointed out to you earlier Keane is just a player... what does he know about management at that time, even now? What does he know about why the board has to make some decisions they made? Man United was a PLC then and not a privately own club... They had responsibilities to the Directors, the small sharholders, the Stock market as they were a listed company at that time... Keane was just a retiring player who had all the wants from his own dimension as a player... The way he was behaving its like a 10 yrs old who just wanted his toys but wasn't aware the job the parents needed to do before he can get his toys?
The question here is...
Does he know what the CEO needs to do before he can buy big?
Does he know that the CEO also needs to do his main job and that is increase club profits, promote the club as well as balance the books?
And even if he wanted to buy, United at that time was a PLC, that means he needed to get the Directors approval in order to buy the big amount Keane wanted.
Every end of a financial year he need to report to the Directors and the stock exchange regarding the health of the club... And if its not favourable, he can be held accountable and lose his job?
The first and foremost job the CEO needs to do is keep the club in the black... and not bring it into the reds.
Again, what does Keane know about all these? Has he been in a executive level before? Like i said earlier, he had his one dimension view to things from the ground level... There was no huge Tv money coming in to support his requests during those days... He was the highest paid player in United and had a contract that stated no other player would earn higher than him. Meaning if they wanted to pay another player higher they had to increase his too. This wasn't a problem only confine to United... During those days, almost every club had this problem... Who knew Chelsea was in debts until Roman Abramovich bought the club... Gerrard has always had the same opinion but he isn't that extreme with his comments... He just said he may consider leaving if the club don't improve. Keane's way was too extreme and wasn't good for the whole squad... We later came to know that Liverpool, Newcastle and even Arsenal who were taking a loan to build their stadium were all in debts to the tune of between $80m to $300m... Keane should leave all this to the management level cos its not his area of expertise... Going around ranting isn't helping matters, it just make it worse.
Let's get this straight. I think the fact you've trouble with basic comprehension is something pretty well-established by now. What I said before Keane's comments on the 4-1 Boro debacle was simply if that particular episode you remember of Keane, then your memories of him is obviously very different from mine. And going by your limited memories from the glorious 90s, I'd be hard pushed to be convinced you've actually been following United for that long to recall anything substantial before the 2000s.
My point to you is, was he right in his assessment in the two quotes cited above? Who are you to decide his "ranting" makes things worse? By the same token, are you saying anyone who doesn't share your view "make things worse"? If he had been wrong, are you suggesting the period from 2002-2006 was one of the most glorious periods in United's illustrious history (with just 1 title and a couple of Cups to show for those lean years)? Suffice to say, if there was no substance to his rantings, it wouldn't make a hell lot of sense for Ferguson to have stuck by him for 12 years and had him skippered United for half that time when others have been shown the door for far "tamer" dissent (think Stam and van Nistelrooy, if not Beckham), would it? Just because you can't live with truth that is often harsh to the ears does not render any further demerit to the substance found in the truth, does it? Or can you also not live with that? The amazing thing here is, logic is lost on you to such an extent it beggars belief.
Save yourself the trouble of talking about a PLC and the modus operandi of a listed company. You have enough trouble trying to make sense of Keane's comments - you'd do well to just stick to it. Go over those quotes again - did he provide his feedback anywhere in them to insinuate he knew better when it came to running the club? Or was he simply talking about something that was related directly to the playing side of things? Just because you choose to draw a link between your fallacious understanding of a business model and some innocuous comments that had no bearing on the running of a PLC to begin with does not render his comments any less credible, does it? Going by your logic, am I supposed to believe David Gill should be the one making all the purchases and sales since even Ferguson would be ill-qualified to run the business side of things? Or are you back to your old-school "if you know nothing about it, you shouldn't comment" conservative folly?
Its not an excuse, its a fact. I have come across many reports and heard many commentaries about players coming over to the EPL from Europe saying that when they first came over, they were not used to the quick pace of the game and needed sometime to get use to the pace as well as the referees being less protective to them and more acceptable to robust challenged...
Really? How long did it take Henry, van Nistelrooy, Stam, Torres, Essien to make their mark in the Premiership? For every Shevchenkos you could think of, there's a Henry/van Nistelrooy/Stam/Torres/Essien to counter your argument. Is that still a "fact" then? So I suppose if you joined a new school, you'd give the excuse for poor performance in your first year or two on the basis that you're new to the environment/grading system/whatever-excuse-you-want-to-use? Then again, what's new regarding the usage of excuses to justify all your inadequacies?
l have said all i can to you about it and if you can't get it into your head then how about this... Its just part of another football tactical strategy that some top managers employ in certain matches... The Italians were probably the best at it... and were very successful with it... On the other hand, all attacking like there is no tomorrow might get you no tomorrow like Kelvin Keegan's Newcastle in the 90s. So its up to you to prefer what you want provided you are the manager... Otherwise, you just have to live with it when they have made their decisions...
Sure, Brazil and Italy have won world cups with grossly differing tactics. All said and done, they don't shoot themselves in the foot and take pride in settling for second, do you? Are you suggesting United are doing something right in Europe considering they set out to win the tournament each season and in the last 11 seasons when they have been a contender at the forefront, have only done so once? Or are you going back to the "if you know nothing, you shouldn't comment" argument in your defence?
Hahaha... ok lah i don't use Monaco and Porto... The reason there are favourites and underdogs is because clearly on paper it could favour one team to the other. But football isn't played on paper does it? So there lies the reason... Underdogs also have their chances... Was Denmark expected to win the Euro 92? No, actually they didn't even qualified but because for some political reason that Yugoslavia was banned they were invited back in to, how would you say it... Made up the numbers? Yup, they were called in to "make up the numbers" so that the group stages could be played in proper but they went on to shock the continent by beating the reigning world champions Germany in the final. How about Greece, who didn't even win a single match the first time they qualified and won the Euro 2004 when they qualify for the 2nd time... And you want to know something... the big teams like the Germany, the Italy and the Spain all didn't made pass the first group stages. Even title holder France was send packing in the quarter finals by non other than Greece themselves. So can i use Denmark and Greece?
Back to the question I have been asking since the dawn of this thread. Can you understand the likelihood of an event happening estimated by probability does not necessarily dictate a certainty? Why are you still going on about your one-in-a-trillion aberrations to mask your ignorance of simple statistics? To drive home this point, why don't I make you a wager : Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool combined will still amass more points than any other 4 teams over the course of the entire 2008/2009 season? Going by your logic, if Man Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool could lose to any team on any given day, surely it'd make sense for you to take on this offer since, with 16 other teams to choose from, you should be getting the longer end of the stick?
The Champions League is only 52 yrs old and you want to take 18 teams to count? Are you aware the CL or The European Cup as it was known back then started with only 16 clubs playing in it? I have used the FA cup as an example cos the competition commenced in 1871... and to date it is around 136 yrs old and earlier you mentioned Barnsley... so you pick the big 4 to show us the "by the law of averages" thing... I have clearly showed you the FA cup numbers and percentage of the big 4 winning is 23.5% and the smaller clubs taking the balance 76.5%... So now you want to take 18 clubs in a 16 club tournament? Anyway, the G14 is no longer in existence... Period.
Are you sure you even know your elementary statistics? Let's ignore the old European Cup format and just factor in the Champions League then (which only came into effect in 94/95). The winners since then have been Ajax, Juventus, Dortmud, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Porto, Liverpool, Barcelona, AC Milan (only twice in those 13 seasons did the trophy not land in the hands of the G14 club). Does that still bode well for your "anything can happen argument"? You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
Non taken... so you are aware that with such intent you can also lose and possibly big too? You don't take the surroundings into consideration? The disadvantage against you? Just go with the intent and everything will be better? It could also be a recipe for suicidal like i have mentioned to you Kelvin Keegan. Keegan's team had lots of intent of playing his usual stuff.... He wasn't flexible, his 90s squad only had intent to win and win big... But intent alone cannot last when conditions wasn't right for his type of football. Your example is not suitable in this sense... It too straight forward, rather too simplistic. Football is not that straight forward... Like i have said earlier, its not won on paper. There are 22 men... Sometimes even if you want to push forward, you are push back... your opponent could be much stronger with advantage against you. Therefore tactical strategy comes into play again. Perhaps I can put it this way maybe it would be clearer to you. If the bloke sitting next to you in class must take 9 subjects but is only strong in 3, average in 3 and poor in 3... What does he do with the limited time before the exams to make sure he don't fail any? Strategic planning of time allocation may be required here.
Are you aware there's risk entailed in just about every course of action and decision you make in life? Going to school risks failure. Getting into a relationship risks breakup/divorce. Getting a job risks termination/retrenchment. So are you not going to go to school, find yourself a spouse or a job just because risk is a part and parcel of these endeavours?
For all the talk about football strategy, why don't you try explaining why haven't United done better than they have in Europe over the past decade? Just because "anything can happen" and you're willing to use that to console yourself in all your failings/shortcomings obviously isn't a very viable argument in football - managers and players have come and gone on the basis of incompetence where "anything can happen" simply doesn't hold much water.
Finally, are you still convince that was the one who had the audacity to ask you why didn't the bookies price Barnsley as even-money joint favourites when they took on Chelsea!? Which part of your far superior knowledge of the english language give you the impression i was asking you this audacious question?
Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
Another bout of self-contradiction? Or are you going to claim ignorance of having typed the stuff in red?
Let's get this straight. I think the fact you've trouble with basic comprehension is something pretty well-established by now. What I said before Keane's comments on the 4-1 Boro debacle was simply if that particular episode you remember of Keane, then your memories of him is obviously very different from mine. And going by your limited memories from the glorious 90s, I'd be hard pushed to be convinced you've actually been following United for that long to recall anything substantial before the 2000s.
My point to you is, was he right in his assessment in the two quotes cited above? Who are you to decide his "ranting" makes things worse? By the same token, are you saying anyone who doesn't share your view "make things worse"? If he had been wrong, are you suggesting the period from 2002-2006 was one of the most glorious periods in United's illustrious history (with just 1 title and a couple of Cups to show for those lean years)? Suffice to say, if there was no substance to his rantings, it wouldn't make a hell lot of sense for Ferguson to have stuck by him for 12 years and had him skippered United for half that time when others have been shown the door for far "tamer" dissent (think Stam and van Nistelrooy, if not Beckham), would it? Just because you can't live with truth that is often harsh to the ears does not render any further demerit to the substance found in the truth, does it? Or can you also not live with that? The amazing thing here is, logic is lost on you to such an extent it beggars belief.
Save yourself the trouble of talking about a PLC and the modus operandi of a listed company. You have enough trouble trying to make sense of Keane's comments - you'd do well to just stick to it. Go over those quotes again - did he provide his feedback anywhere in them to insinuate he knew better when it came to running the club? Or was he simply talking about something that was related directly to the playing side of things? Just because you choose to draw a link between your fallacious understanding of a business model and some innocuous comments that had no bearing on the running of a PLC to begin with does not render his comments any less credible, does it? Going by your logic, am I supposed to believe David Gill should be the one making all the purchases and sales since even Ferguson would be ill-qualified to run the business side of things? Or are you back to your old-school "if you know nothing about it, you shouldn't comment" conservative folly?
Enough of your nonsense of moving the goalpost whenever i ask you a simple question... Yes, my basic comprehension is not very good. Please enlighten me and tell me what do you make of this? "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?" What part of "Was it not his tirade" and "after" a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
My replied was... he was a great player for united no doubt but going on a rant like that at that point wasn't helping anyone especially the squad... Coincidentally after Fergie made a brave decision to relief him of the captaincy and "released" him from the squad altogether did they started to play better again... and not because of his rants... I think you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in...
I have nothing against other parts, our exchanged on Keane only started when I pick up on this point..."Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
So do you still stand by your earlier post that he woke United up after their 4-1 defeat at Boro?
And still credited him for the late charge for the title?
These are just 2 of my simple questions for you.
Now, why should we avoid the period of the PLC? Won't they very much involved with United during those years? and very much so too if you wish to address your 2 quotes from Keane... My view is he was wrong with those 2 quotes you have mentioned. Reason being like i have said earlier that he wasn't even in an executive level to know the financial aspect of the club to make such a comment. Moreover, his views really didn't hold much considering that during those years mentioned, United were the biggest spender in the epl... In 2001, United spent a combine sum of $49.6m on RVN ($19M), Veron, ($28.1m), Roy Carroll ($2.5m) and Laurent Blanc came for free. In 2002, They continued with purchased of Diego Forlan ($6.9m), Rio Ferdinand ($30m), and Lopez ($1.5m) Bringing their total to $38.4 million. If you can find another club that spent more than them for these 2 said years, then come and tell me... Another thing is, United did win the premiership title in 98/99, 99/00, 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 seasons. They didn't win the 2001/2002 season was only because Arsenal had an outstanding season. They won their final 13 Premiership fixtures, scored in all 38 Premiership games and were unbeaten on their Premiership travels... On the basis of this amazing record, they deserved to win the title.
The point i have all along been trying to make to you is this... Its not just a matter of what you did do or didn't do sometimes, It could also be a case of the other team doing extremely well beyond normal circumstance that you have to accept and settle for second best. Ranting about not trying is silly when the odds are stack against you to the max.
Keane's comments wasn't relevant and could not be apply to the 2002-2006 period. Of the 4 yrs mentioned, they did win 1, and lost another to an Arsenal side that went unbeaten for the whole season and the other 2 to the arrival of Roman Abramovich at Chelsea. These are important factors that need to be taken into considerations... Moreover, from 2003 onwards United were a club with boardroom turbulence... I mentioned the PLC was important and i tell you why now... John Magnier and JP McManus arrival wasn't a good thing, United being a PLC allows them to slowly but surely buy up enough shares to become a major shareholders of the club. Their intentions wasn't because they love football or the club but to make live difficult for Ferguson because of their racehorse disputes on the Rock of Gibraltar... Neither were football fans. They demanded answers to 99 questions about how United does its business from buying and selling star players to dealing with agents (one of whom is the son of Ferguson)... You can imagine if they only buy 4 to 5 players a year, they wanted answers on 99 players since the time Fergie started... They didn't allowed the board to offer Ferguson a new 4 yrs contract and instead only give him 1 on a rolling deal. Clearly with all these going on for a few years and Rio getting banned for 8 months out of the sudden adds up to the reason Chelsea easily won with the millions from Abramovich...
Finally when Ferguson compromise and drop his law suit against them, they stop all their questions and sold of the club to the Glazers... On the same article you can find a phase on Roy Keane too and i think they are referring to him talking better than his own performance on the pitch.
Ferguson and Magnier:a truce in the internal warfare at United
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/03/08/stud_ed3_.php
Really? How long did it take Henry, van Nistelrooy, Stam, Torres, Essien to make their mark in the Premiership? For every Shevchenkos you could think of, there's a Henry/van Nistelrooy/Stam/Torres/Essien to counter your argument. Is that still a "fact" then? So I suppose if you joined a new school, you'd give the excuse for poor performance in your first year or two on the basis that you're new to the environment/grading system/whatever-excuse-you-want-to-use? Then again, what's new regarding the usage of excuses to justify all your inadequacies?
On this issue, I think you can apply your "a simple matter of probability" to it when you mention those few names. Kindly apply your "by the law of averages" to this matter... For every few you mentioned, there are many more that didn't manage in the earlier stages. Drogba, Anderson, Nani, Evra, Hleb, Flamini, Ballack, Shevchenko, Malouda, Arteta, Yakubu, Voronin, Mascherano, Kuyt, Tevez, Alves, Mendes, Baros, Zokora... there are so many... Henry... Are you sure he took of from the start of his first season? You better check carefully...
Sure, Brazil and Italy have won world cups with grossly differing tactics. All said and done, they don't shoot themselves in the foot and take pride in settling for second, do you? Are you suggesting United are doing something right in Europe considering they set out to win the tournament each season and in the last 11 seasons when they have been a contender at the forefront, have only done so once? Or are you going back to the "if you know nothing, you shouldn't comment" argument in your defence?
Very good, you can see that Italy has won many tournaments playing defensive football. So, in general they played the same style, once getting beaten by Korea and getting eliminated and another when on to win the World Cup... So do you see the contrasting results on both occasions? Well, if you want to be closer to the CL, Lets take Liverpool for instance... Wasn't their 2005 win played on the back of their defensive strength? They won 2-1 at home and went to Juve and played a defensive game and came away with a 0-0 score? Then in the semi... again they employ the same defensive tactics and hold Chelsea to a 0-0 draw at the Bridge then won 1-0 in Anfield... So, whats the Problem, did they lose it, did they settled for second at the end?
Back to the question I have been asking since the dawn of this thread. Can you understand the likelihood of an event happening estimated by probability does not necessarily dictate a certainty? Why are you still going on about your one-in-a-trillion aberrations to mask your ignorance of simple statistics? To drive home this point, why don't I make you a wager : Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool combined will still amass more points than any other 4 teams over the course of the entire 2008/2009 season? Going by your logic, if Man Utd/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool could lose to any team on any given day, surely it'd make sense for you to take on this offer since, with 16 other teams to choose from, you should be getting the longer end of the stick?
Yes perfectly clear. And its definitely not a one-in-a-trillion probability. Don't take the whole league as a yardstick, since you are so sure that there could be a certainty among them, why not you pick a certainty to have the most points at the end of next season? There certainly could be at least 3 probabilities wouldn't you agree? Or better still, the European Championship is just around the corner in June... There are 16 teams in there, why don't you choose 1 or 2 certainties afterall, of the last 4 tournaments, 2 was won by probabilities Denmark and Greece. Here are the countries for the Euro 2008... Switzerland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Poland, Romania, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Russia, Greece and Sweden... Go ahead, choose who you thing will be the certainty or maybe why not choose 2 teams to make it easier for you...
Are you sure you even know your elementary statistics? Let's ignore the old European Cup format and just factor in the Champions League then (which only came into effect in 94/95). The winners since then have been Ajax, Juventus, Dortmud, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Porto, Liverpool, Barcelona, AC Milan (only twice in those 13 seasons did the trophy not land in the hands of the G14 club). Does that still bode well for your "anything can happen argument"? You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
lol... I think wikipedia where you get your info from has not been updated lol... Please visit...
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15012008/58/champions-league-g-14-disbanded.html or
http://sgforums.j37.com/forums/2497/topics/303268
for the latest on the G14. Actually it has been disbanded for quite sometime already i think... So who is the one deluding here me? you?
Are you aware there's risk entailed in just about every course of action and decision you make in life? Going to school risks failure. Getting into a relationship risks breakup/divorce. Getting a job risks termination/retrenchment. So are you not going to go to school, find yourself a spouse or a job just because risk is a part and parcel of these endeavours?
For all the talk about football strategy, why don't you try explaining why haven't United done better than they have in Europe over the past decade? Just because "anything can happen" and you're willing to use that to console yourself in all your failings/shortcomings obviously isn't a very viable argument in football - managers and players have come and gone on the basis of incompetence where "anything can happen" simply doesn't hold much water.
Yes, there are risk in everything... Even playing attacking or defensive football there are risk.... Risk can come from anywhere and in any form. You can also be sitting down in the comfort of your home and drinking a glass of milk and get choke and die from it. I am not an expert but i can think of a few reasons tho... Not winning in Europe has many probabilities like you are unlucky with poor referee decisions, wrong tactics used by the manager, injuries to key players, fatigue due to too many matches and inadequate rest... there are just so many factors to take into account that could hinder a team chance... Just like there could also be so many moments that enhance another... I think why United could have difficulties could be because they are always challenging for the premier league title on their good years... Why do you only pick on United? Why don't you think about the Chelsea, the Arsenal and the Pool? Since they are all from the same class of Premier league squads. Have any of them ever won the title and Europe at the same time?
Are you on another round of new-found self-contradiction crusade? Are you living in denial or am I lying to suggest 8 players who participated in the league matches in the preceding weekend (before the first leg) featured in the first-leg ofthe Liverpool-Chelsea tie? What's your definition of "start"? So I suppose players who actually play some part in a match are actually "rested" too? So would you like to name me the first choice starting XI for both Liverpool and Chelsea which, form and fitness permitting, would be the side that takes to the field at every reasonable opportunity? Or can you not live with the fact football has become a squad game in the modern age?
Simple, The definition of start is players who started in the first 11. In most cases if not due to injury, they will play the full 90 mins or at least 45 to 60 mins. Those coming in late are just to give them a short run of the match... Or in Giggs case, giving him another match on the record books towards his record number of games played for United. Coming on in the 90 mins also consider playing 90 mins? Park came on in the 90 mins against Blackburn... So for example if United win the title and so happens he amass 10 matches played, he gets a medal. Anything lesser than that 10 he doesn't qualify for it get it.
Finally, i have provided you with the players that started against Birmingham on Sat, Maybe we can see how many will actually start or take part on this wed...
Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
Another bout of self-contradiction? Or are you going to claim ignorance of having typed the stuff in red?
lol... If there is any ignorance here, its certainly not coming from me tho... I already told you to go and take a look at page 4, your last post, 1st paragraph... I was merely quoting you... lol. Man, you pawned yourself with the G14, and brought out Barnsley and claimed i said it, On Keane, said after their 1-4 then claimed to mean before... I am just surprise that for all your claim with your far superior knowledge of the english language and to United, you seem to be coming out short from all this exchanged... Moreover your so called long timed knowledge since you said i don't know anything of United before 2000 apparently isn't very good too... lol...
-
walow essay writing competition blinds my eyes
-
Enough of your nonsense of moving the goalpost whenever i ask you a simple question... Yes, my basic comprehension is not very good. Please enlighten me and tell me what do you make of this? "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?" What part of "Was it not his tirade" and "after" a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
My replied was... he was a great player for united no doubt but going on a rant like that at that point wasn't helping anyone especially the squad... Coincidentally after Fergie made a brave decision to relief him of the captaincy and "released" him from the squad altogether did they started to play better again... and not because of his rants... I think you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in...
I have nothing against other parts, our exchanged on Keane only started when I pick up on this point..."Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
So do you still stand by your earlier post that he woke United up after their 4-1 defeat at Boro?
And still credited him for the late charge for the title?
These are just 2 of my simple questions for you.
Now, why should we avoid the period of the PLC? Won't they very much involved with United during those years? and very much so too if you wish to address your 2 quotes from Keane... My view is he was wrong with those 2 quotes you have mentioned. Reason being like i have said earlier that he wasn't even in an executive level to know the financial aspect of the club to make such a comment. Moreover, his views really didn't hold much considering that during those years mentioned, United were the biggest spender in the epl... In 2001, United spent a combine sum of $49.6m on RVN ($19M), Veron, ($28.1m), Roy Carroll ($2.5m) and Laurent Blanc came for free. In 2002, They continued with purchased of Diego Forlan ($6.9m), Rio Ferdinand ($30m), and Lopez ($1.5m) Bringing their total to $38.4 million. If you can find another club that spent more than them for these 2 said years, then come and tell me... Another thing is, United did win the premiership title in 98/99, 99/00, 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 seasons. They didn't win the 2001/2002 season was only because Arsenal had an outstanding season. They won their final 13 Premiership fixtures, scored in all 38 Premiership games and were unbeaten on their Premiership travels... On the basis of this amazing record, they deserved to win the title.
The point i have all along been trying to make to you is this... Its not just a matter of what you did do or didn't do sometimes, It could also be a case of the other team doing extremely well beyond normal circumstance that you have to accept and settle for second best. Ranting about not trying is silly when the odds are stack against you to the max.
Keane's comments wasn't relevant and could not be apply to the 2002-2006 period. Of the 4 yrs mentioned, they did win 1, and lost another to an Arsenal side that went unbeaten for the whole season and the other 2 to the arrival of Roman Abramovich at Chelsea. These are important factors that need to be taken into considerations... Moreover, from 2003 onwards United were a club with boardroom turbulence... I mentioned the PLC was important and i tell you why now... John Magnier and JP McManus arrival wasn't a good thing, United being a PLC allows them to slowly but surely buy up enough shares to become a major shareholders of the club. Their intentions wasn't because they love football or the club but to make live difficult for Ferguson because of their racehorse disputes on the Rock of Gibraltar... Neither were football fans. They demanded answers to 99 questions about how United does its business from buying and selling star players to dealing with agents (one of whom is the son of Ferguson)... You can imagine if they only buy 4 to 5 players a year, they wanted answers on 99 players since the time Fergie started... They didn't allowed the board to offer Ferguson a new 4 yrs contract and instead only give him 1 on a rolling deal. Clearly with all these going on for a few years and Rio getting banned for 8 months out of the sudden adds up to the reason Chelsea easily won with the millions from Abramovich...
Finally when Ferguson compromise and drop his law suit against them, they stop all their questions and sold of the club to the Glazers... On the same article you can find a phase on Roy Keane too and i think they are referring to him talking better than his own performance on the pitch.
The "nonsense" you perceive to exist stems from your inability to comprehend simple logic in its most basic form - if you can't differentiate the estimate of likelihood and the certainty of an event, it'd be a miracle for anything not to come across as nonsense to you.
And yes, I still stand by the fact Keane's rants made United a better team. The point here is, was he right in his assessment? I judge him on the substance of his comments rather than the style of his delivery. In fact, the ensuing debacle (which lasted through 2006, including a disastrous CL campaign with elimination in the group stage) simply proved his rhetoric right.
I am not avoiding the period of the PLC as your erroneous inability to comprehend fundamental logic and statements would lead you to believe. I'm challenging your logic as to suggest Keane's comments had in any tangible form, shape or way to suggest he had actually made proposals or insinuated he knew better than the United board in terms of how the club should be run as a commercial entity. If you can satisfactorily convince me those statements were in any way a criticism of the board's running of the club (instead of a simple criticism of the playing and management staff), I'd be more than happy to talk about the merits of Man Utd as a PLC with you. As for the rest of your diatribe in the post, it deserves as much attention and merit as a child's ramblings. If you're going to expand on Abramovich's billions, Arsenal's invincibility and United's boardroom turbulence as excuses (which you've become quite a master of) to justify United's inadequacy, you might as well extend to include the micro-climate at Old Trafford and the increased levels of pollution brought about by global warming in an industrial city like Manchester to excuse their inadequacies. For all your drivel mentioned, you may wish to note that there was not actually a boardroom turbulence (Magnier was in dispute with Ferguson over a non-football issue and Magnier was hardly at war with anyone at the United board as you witness now with Liverpool) and Abramovich still holds the fort at Chelsea - funny how United have since turned things around, eh? More colourful excuses to justify that trend, perhaps?
On this issue, I think you can apply your "a simple matter of probability" to it when you mention those few names. Kindly apply your "by the law of averages" to this matter... For every few you mentioned, there are many more that didn't manage in the earlier stages. Drogba, Anderson, Nani, Evra, Hleb, Flamini, Ballack, Shevchenko, Malouda, Arteta, Yakubu, Voronin, Mascherano, Kuyt, Tevez, Alves, Mendes, Baros, Zokora... there are so many... Henry... Are you sure he took of from the start of his first season? You better check carefully...
So how does that justify the English league is a "tougher" league to play in? By probability or otherwise, I've provided you with tonnes of examples of players who have done well in their first season. I never said it was the "easiest league" in the world to play in, did I? I'm still waiting for you to prove your ill-conceived belief that it's a "harder league to play in". Are you telling me just because all boys are humans, all humans are necessarily boys?
Very good, you can see that Italy has won many tournaments playing defensive football. So, in general they played the same style, once getting beaten by Korea and getting eliminated and another when on to win the World Cup... So do you see the contrasting results on both occasions? Well, if you want to be closer to the CL, Lets take Liverpool for instance... Wasn't their 2005 win played on the back of their defensive strength? They won 2-1 at home and went to Juve and played a defensive game and came away with a 0-0 score? Then in the semi... again they employ the same defensive tactics and hold Chelsea to a 0-0 draw at the Bridge then won 1-0 in Anfield... So, whats the Problem, did they lose it, did they settled for second at the end?
For all your talk, did those teams you mentioned play to win or play to settle for second? Were they happy finishing second? Did you ever hear Benitez ('05) or Trappatoni ('02) telling you a 0-0 was a marvellous result as Ferguson did after the Nou Camp debacle? You still seem pretty deluded in terms of separating intent from action. Or are you even aware the words are spelt differently?
Yes perfectly clear. And its definitely not a one-in-a-trillion probability. Don't take the whole league as a yardstick, since you are so sure that there could be a certainty among them, why not you pick a certainty to have the most points at the end of next season? There certainly could be at least 3 probabilities wouldn't you agree? Or better still, the European Championship is just around the corner in June... There are 16 teams in there, why don't you choose 1 or 2 certainties afterall, of the last 4 tournaments, 2 was won by probabilities Denmark and Greece. Here are the countries for the Euro 2008... Switzerland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Poland, Romania, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Russia, Greece and Sweden... Go ahead, choose who you thing will be the certainty or maybe why not choose 2 teams to make it easier for you...
Is your basic statistics sound? Do you even understand the meaning of probability? Or is your grasp as hapless as your hopeless comprehension skills? You must be reading things plucked off the air in your desperate attempt to drive home a lost cause - cite me the part where I actually suggested I regarded my proposition to be a "certainty" (to enlighten your endeavour further, you may wish to note I'm referring to an event with a probability that equals to 1 in statistical terms as definition of "certainty"). So back to basics : are you suggesting just because "anything can happen", all probabilities go out of the window and anyone who eventually wins actually becomes a genuine title contender? If that's what you believe in, why not walk into your local bookies and place a bet on the bottom half of the 16 teams(ie.pick the 8 teams with the highest odds) to win Euro 2008 and do it consistently for every European Championships when they come round once every 4 years and tell me if you make a profit over a sustained period of 10-15 European Championships?
Are you sure you even know your elementary statistics? Let's ignore the old European Cup format and just factor in the Champions League then (which only came into effect in 94/95). The winners since then have been Ajax, Juventus, Dortmud, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Porto, Liverpool, Barcelona, AC Milan (only twice in those 13 seasons did the trophy not land in the hands of the G14 club). Does that still bode well for your "anything can happen argument"? You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
lol... I think wikipedia where you get your info from has not been updated lol... Please visit...
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15012008/58/champions-league-g-14-disbanded.html or
http://sgforums.j37.com/forums/2497/topics/303268
for the latest on the G14. Actually it has been disbanded for quite sometime already i think... So who is the one deluding here me? you?
I take it you've run out of excuses to defend your idiocy of averages in your inability to defend the fact the G14 clubs (wether they're still functioning or not is another matter, but the clubs the term refers to clearly does not change) have actually won more European Cups than the rest, regardless of whether you consider the CL in its present or the former European Cup format? Clearly, the shift from the European Cup to the CL format which you challenged in an earlier post only further serves to dent the merits of your argument further.
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand. You may wish to refer to http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1968283.0.Rangers_and_Celtic_to_benefit_from_demise_of_G14.php and http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/68209,g14-axed-as-clubs-agree-international-pay.aspx.
All said and done, I stand corrected and let's just award you a scant and desperate consolation in what has otherwise been a comedy of desperately feeble attempts to derail reality from fantasy.
Yes, there are risk in everything... Even playing attacking or defensive football there are risk.... Risk can come from anywhere and in any form. You can also be sitting down in the comfort of your home and drinking a glass of milk and get choke and die from it. I am not an expert but i can think of a few reasons tho... Not winning in Europe has many probabilities like you are unlucky with poor referee decisions, wrong tactics used by the manager, injuries to key players, fatigue due to too many matches and inadequate rest... there are just so many factors to take into account that could hinder a team chance... Just like there could also be so many moments that enhance another... I think why United could have difficulties could be because they are always challenging for the premier league title on their good years... Why do you only pick on United? Why don't you think about the Chelsea, the Arsenal and the Pool? Since they are all from the same class of Premier league squads. Have any of them ever won the title and Europe at the same time?
So what's your point now? More excuses or more re-definition and blurring of the line between "anything can happen" and the "estimate of likelihood" which you seem to be lost on? For all your drivel, which side that has won the Champions League has, more often than not, not been a serious contender for their domestic title?
For all your excuses and incapacity to make sense of your self-contradicting garb on why I pick on United (which is another ill-conceived notion founded on fantasy) : why don't you tell me the last time a club (nevermind Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea - feel free to pick from any in Europe) that openly declares its intent and belief in winning the Champions League actually declares a 0-0 away draw as a marvellous result only to completely mess things up?
Simple, The definition of start is players who started in the first 11. In most cases if not due to injury, they will play the full 90 mins or at least 45 to 60 mins. Those coming in late are just to give them a short run of the match... Or in Giggs case, giving him another match on the record books towards his record number of games played for United. Coming on in the 90 mins also consider playing 90 mins? Park came on in the 90 mins against Blackburn... So for example if United win the title and so happens he amass 10 matches played, he gets a medal. Anything lesser than that 10 he doesn't qualify for it get it.
Finally, i have provided you with the players that started against Birmingham on Sat, Maybe we can see how many will actually start or take part on this wed...
My question to you is, who constitutes the first XI? Why don't you name me the first XI which would be the default starting lineup (when suspensions and injuries permit) at Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Utd so I can take your groundless argument more seriously?
Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
lol... If there is any ignorance here, its certainly not coming from me tho... I already told you to go and take a look at page 4, your last post, 1st paragraph... I was merely quoting you... lol. Man, you pawned yourself with the G14, and brought out Barnsley and claimed i said it, On Keane, said after their 1-4 then claimed to mean before... I am just surprise that for all your claim with your far superior knowledge of the english language and to United, you seem to be coming out short from all this exchanged... Moreover your so called long timed knowledge since you said i don't know anything of United before 2000 apparently isn't very good too... lol...
Are you that deluded or is your brain malfunctioning to such extremes? Or has your comprehension of fundamental English sunk to such abysmal levels in your desperate attempt to convolute matters in a bid to mask your ignorance? The part in grey was a quote from me. The part in red was your stance despite having rammed home the part in orange which was supposed to back your argument. Or are you backing your stance on the basis of a contradiction to strengthen your argument in a completely different context? So are you simply self-contradicting? Or are you making completely no sense?
So which side of the fence are you sitting on now in your desperate bid for a saving grace? Was Barnsley defeating Chelsea and Liverpool an event which would have figured prominently on the estimation-of-likelihood radar or was in an aberration that threw the form book out of the window? So just because "anything can happen", does that mean all events in the sample size now have an equal chance of occurring?
The only thing coming short out of this exchange is your sanity and selective amnesia which seems so dire that would put any person with a reasonable intelligence to shame.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Enough of your nonsense of moving the goalpost whenever i ask you a simple question... Yes, my basic comprehension is not very good. Please enlighten me and tell me what do you make of this? "Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?" What part of "Was it not his tirade" and "after" a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
My replied was... he was a great player for united no doubt but going on a rant like that at that point wasn't helping anyone especially the squad... Coincidentally after Fergie made a brave decision to relief him of the captaincy and "released" him from the squad altogether did they started to play better again... and not because of his rants... I think you are crediting something that he didn't had a hand in...
I have nothing against other parts, our exchanged on Keane only started when I pick up on this point..."Was it not his tirade after a 4-1 defeat at Boro that woke United up in a late charge for the title, albeit futile?"
So do you still stand by your earlier post that he woke United up after their 4-1 defeat at Boro?
And still credited him for the late charge for the title?
These are just 2 of my simple questions for you.
Now, why should we avoid the period of the PLC? Won't they very much involved with United during those years? and very much so too if you wish to address your 2 quotes from Keane... My view is he was wrong with those 2 quotes you have mentioned. Reason being like i have said earlier that he wasn't even in an executive level to know the financial aspect of the club to make such a comment. Moreover, his views really didn't hold much considering that during those years mentioned, United were the biggest spender in the epl... In 2001, United spent a combine sum of $49.6m on RVN ($19M), Veron, ($28.1m), Roy Carroll ($2.5m) and Laurent Blanc came for free. In 2002, They continued with purchased of Diego Forlan ($6.9m), Rio Ferdinand ($30m), and Lopez ($1.5m) Bringing their total to $38.4 million. If you can find another club that spent more than them for these 2 said years, then come and tell me... Another thing is, United did win the premiership title in 98/99, 99/00, 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 seasons. They didn't win the 2001/2002 season was only because Arsenal had an outstanding season. They won their final 13 Premiership fixtures, scored in all 38 Premiership games and were unbeaten on their Premiership travels... On the basis of this amazing record, they deserved to win the title.
The point i have all along been trying to make to you is this... Its not just a matter of what you did do or didn't do sometimes, It could also be a case of the other team doing extremely well beyond normal circumstance that you have to accept and settle for second best. Ranting about not trying is silly when the odds are stack against you to the max.
Keane's comments wasn't relevant and could not be apply to the 2002-2006 period. Of the 4 yrs mentioned, they did win 1, and lost another to an Arsenal side that went unbeaten for the whole season and the other 2 to the arrival of Roman Abramovich at Chelsea. These are important factors that need to be taken into considerations... Moreover, from 2003 onwards United were a club with boardroom turbulence... I mentioned the PLC was important and i tell you why now... John Magnier and JP McManus arrival wasn't a good thing, United being a PLC allows them to slowly but surely buy up enough shares to become a major shareholders of the club. Their intentions wasn't because they love football or the club but to make live difficult for Ferguson because of their racehorse disputes on the Rock of Gibraltar... Neither were football fans. They demanded answers to 99 questions about how United does its business from buying and selling star players to dealing with agents (one of whom is the son of Ferguson)... You can imagine if they only buy 4 to 5 players a year, they wanted answers on 99 players since the time Fergie started... They didn't allowed the board to offer Ferguson a new 4 yrs contract and instead only give him 1 on a rolling deal. Clearly with all these going on for a few years and Rio getting banned for 8 months out of the sudden adds up to the reason Chelsea easily won with the millions from Abramovich...
Finally when Ferguson compromise and drop his law suit against them, they stop all their questions and sold of the club to the Glazers... On the same article you can find a phase on Roy Keane too and i think they are referring to him talking better than his own performance on the pitch.
The "nonsense" you perceive to exist stems from your inability to comprehend simple logic in its most basic form - if you can't differentiate the estimate of likelihood and the certainty of an event, it'd be a miracle for anything not to come across as nonsense to you.
And yes, I still stand by the fact Keane's rants made United a better team. The point here is, was he right in his assessment? I judge him on the substance of his comments rather than the style of his delivery. In fact, the ensuing debacle (which lasted through 2006, including a disastrous CL campaign with elimination in the group stage) simply proved his rhetoric right.
I am not avoiding the period of the PLC as your erroneous inability to comprehend fundamental logic and statements would lead you to believe. I'm challenging your logic as to suggest Keane's comments had in any tangible form, shape or way to suggest he had actually made proposals or insinuated he knew better than the United board in terms of how the club should be run as a commercial entity. If you can satisfactorily convince me those statements were in any way a criticism of the board's running of the club (instead of a simple criticism of the playing and management staff), I'd be more than happy to talk about the merits of Man Utd as a PLC with you. As for the rest of your diatribe in the post, it deserves as much attention and merit as a child's ramblings. If you're going to expand on Abramovich's billions, Arsenal's invincibility and United's boardroom turbulence as excuses (which you've become quite a master of) to justify United's inadequacy, you might as well extend to include the micro-climate at Old Trafford and the increased levels of pollution brought about by global warming in an industrial city like Manchester to excuse their inadequacies. For all your drivel mentioned, you may wish to note that there was not actually a boardroom turbulence (Magnier was in dispute with Ferguson over a non-football issue and Magnier was hardly at war with anyone at the United board as you witness now with Liverpool) and Abramovich still holds the fort at Chelsea - funny how United have since turned things around, eh? More colourful excuses to justify that trend, perhaps?
On this issue, I think you can apply your "a simple matter of probability" to it when you mention those few names. Kindly apply your "by the law of averages" to this matter... For every few you mentioned, there are many more that didn't manage in the earlier stages. Drogba, Anderson, Nani, Evra, Hleb, Flamini, Ballack, Shevchenko, Malouda, Arteta, Yakubu, Voronin, Mascherano, Kuyt, Tevez, Alves, Mendes, Baros, Zokora... there are so many... Henry... Are you sure he took of from the start of his first season? You better check carefully...
So how does that justify the English league is a "tougher" league to play in? By probability or otherwise, I've provided you with tonnes of examples of players who have done well in their first season. I never said it was the "easiest league" in the world to play in, did I? I'm still waiting for you to prove your ill-conceived belief that it's a "harder league to play in". Are you telling me just because all boys are humans, all humans are necessarily boys?
Very good, you can see that Italy has won many tournaments playing defensive football. So, in general they played the same style, once getting beaten by Korea and getting eliminated and another when on to win the World Cup... So do you see the contrasting results on both occasions? Well, if you want to be closer to the CL, Lets take Liverpool for instance... Wasn't their 2005 win played on the back of their defensive strength? They won 2-1 at home and went to Juve and played a defensive game and came away with a 0-0 score? Then in the semi... again they employ the same defensive tactics and hold Chelsea to a 0-0 draw at the Bridge then won 1-0 in Anfield... So, whats the Problem, did they lose it, did they settled for second at the end?
For all your talk, did those teams you mentioned play to win or play to settle for second? Were they happy finishing second? Did you ever hear Benitez ('05) or Trappatoni ('02) telling you a 0-0 was a marvellous result as Ferguson did after the Nou Camp debacle? You still seem pretty deluded in terms of separating intent from action. Or are you even aware the words are spelt differently?
Yes perfectly clear. And its definitely not a one-in-a-trillion probability. Don't take the whole league as a yardstick, since you are so sure that there could be a certainty among them, why not you pick a certainty to have the most points at the end of next season? There certainly could be at least 3 probabilities wouldn't you agree? Or better still, the European Championship is just around the corner in June... There are 16 teams in there, why don't you choose 1 or 2 certainties afterall, of the last 4 tournaments, 2 was won by probabilities Denmark and Greece. Here are the countries for the Euro 2008... Switzerland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Turkey, Austria, Croatia, Germany, Poland, Romania, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Russia, Greece and Sweden... Go ahead, choose who you thing will be the certainty or maybe why not choose 2 teams to make it easier for you...
Is your basic statistics sound? Do you even understand the meaning of probability? Or is your grasp as hapless as your hopeless comprehension skills? You must be reading things plucked off the air in your desperate attempt to drive home a lost cause - cite me the part where I actually suggested I regarded my proposition to be a "certainty" (to enlighten your endeavour further, you may wish to note I'm referring to an event with a probability that equals to 1 in statistical terms as definition of "certainty"). So back to basics : are you suggesting just because "anything can happen", all probabilities go out of the window and anyone who eventually wins actually becomes a genuine title contender? If that's what you believe in, why not walk into your local bookies and place a bet on the bottom half of the 16 teams(ie.pick the 8 teams with the highest odds) to win Euro 2008 and do it consistently for every European Championships when they come round once every 4 years and tell me if you make a profit over a sustained period of 10-15 European Championships?
Are you sure you even know your elementary statistics? Let's ignore the old European Cup format and just factor in the Champions League then (which only came into effect in 94/95). The winners since then have been Ajax, Juventus, Dortmud, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Porto, Liverpool, Barcelona, AC Milan (only twice in those 13 seasons did the trophy not land in the hands of the G14 club). Does that still bode well for your "anything can happen argument"? You must be fairly deluded to even believe the G14 is no longer in existence when directors/executives from those clubs still meet regularly (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-14 just in case you haven't got a clue what G14 stands for). Or are you so bored you've decided to challenge facts when you can't withstand your opinions being challenged?
lol... I think wikipedia where you get your info from has not been updated lol... Please visit...
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15012008/58/champions-league-g-14-disbanded.html or
http://sgforums.j37.com/forums/2497/topics/303268
for the latest on the G14. Actually it has been disbanded for quite sometime already i think... So who is the one deluding here me? you?
I take it you've run out of excuses to defend your idiocy of averages in your inability to defend the fact the G14 clubs (wether they're still functioning or not is another matter, but the clubs the term refers to clearly does not change) have actually won more European Cups than the rest, regardless of whether you consider the CL in its present or the former European Cup format? Clearly, the shift from the European Cup to the CL format which you challenged in an earlier post only further serves to dent the merits of your argument further.
For the lack of clarity, I will cede this point to you in view of my ambiguity and your hapless and mindless arguments elsewhere which have made completely no sense. All said and done, you may wish to note that despite the fact the G14 had disbanded in February, the factual statement of directors and executives of the G14 clubs still held plans to meet after the G14 umbrella being disbanded to iron out the existing issues and the eventual integration of these clubs into the ECA (G14's successor) still stand. You may wish to refer to http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1968283.0.Rangers_and_Celtic_to_benefit_from_demise_of_G14.php and http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/68209,g14-axed-as-clubs-agree-international-pay.aspx.
All said and done, I stand corrected and let's just award you a scant and desperate consolation in what has otherwise been a comedy of desperately feeble attempts to derail reality from fantasy.
Yes, there are risk in everything... Even playing attacking or defensive football there are risk.... Risk can come from anywhere and in any form. You can also be sitting down in the comfort of your home and drinking a glass of milk and get choke and die from it. I am not an expert but i can think of a few reasons tho... Not winning in Europe has many probabilities like you are unlucky with poor referee decisions, wrong tactics used by the manager, injuries to key players, fatigue due to too many matches and inadequate rest... there are just so many factors to take into account that could hinder a team chance... Just like there could also be so many moments that enhance another... I think why United could have difficulties could be because they are always challenging for the premier league title on their good years... Why do you only pick on United? Why don't you think about the Chelsea, the Arsenal and the Pool? Since they are all from the same class of Premier league squads. Have any of them ever won the title and Europe at the same time?
So what's your point now? More excuses or more re-definition and blurring of the line between "anything can happen" and the "estimate of likelihood" which you seem to be lost on? For all your drivel, which side that has won the Champions League has, more often than not, not been a serious contender for their domestic title?
For all your excuses and incapacity to make sense of your self-contradicting garb on why I pick on United (which is another ill-conceived notion founded on fantasy) : why don't you tell me the last time a club (nevermind Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea - feel free to pick from any in Europe) that openly declares its intent and belief in winning the Champions League actually declares a 0-0 away draw as a marvellous result only to completely mess things up?
Simple, The definition of start is players who started in the first 11. In most cases if not due to injury, they will play the full 90 mins or at least 45 to 60 mins. Those coming in late are just to give them a short run of the match... Or in Giggs case, giving him another match on the record books towards his record number of games played for United. Coming on in the 90 mins also consider playing 90 mins? Park came on in the 90 mins against Blackburn... So for example if United win the title and so happens he amass 10 matches played, he gets a medal. Anything lesser than that 10 he doesn't qualify for it get it.
Finally, i have provided you with the players that started against Birmingham on Sat, Maybe we can see how many will actually start or take part on this wed...
My question to you is, who constitutes the first XI? Why don't you name me the first XI which would be the default starting lineup (when suspensions and injuries permit) at Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Utd so I can take your groundless argument more seriously?
Yup like i have pointed out to you earlier, its 11 men vs 11 men at most times... Its good that you brought out Barnsley as an example. Cos it just give me a good reason to inform you that since football started to become a competitive game, I belief upsets and shock results was also part of it... Barnsley not only beat Chelsea, but they also beat Liverpool at Anfield... AT ANFIELD! What were the odds of that happening? You are asking me to explain why "Barnsley weren't touted as the even-money joint-favourites in the FA Cup clash earlier in the season?" You can't be serious?
lol... If there is any ignorance here, its certainly not coming from me tho... I already told you to go and take a look at page 4, your last post, 1st paragraph... I was merely quoting you... lol. Man, you pawned yourself with the G14, and brought out Barnsley and claimed i said it, On Keane, said after their 1-4 then claimed to mean before... I am just surprise that for all your claim with your far superior knowledge of the english language and to United, you seem to be coming out short from all this exchanged... Moreover your so called long timed knowledge since you said i don't know anything of United before 2000 apparently isn't very good too... lol...
Are you that deluded or is your brain malfunctioning to such extremes? Or has your comprehension of fundamental English sunk to such abysmal levels in your desperate attempt to convolute matters in a bid to mask your ignorance? The part in grey was a quote from me. The part in red was your stance despite having rammed home the part in orange which was supposed to back your argument. Or are you backing your stance on the basis of a contradiction to strengthen your argument in a completely different context? So are you simply self-contradicting? Or are you making completely no sense?
So which side of the fence are you sitting on now in your desperate bid for a saving grace? Was Barnsley defeating Chelsea and Liverpool an event which would have figured prominently on the estimation-of-likelihood radar or was in an aberration that threw the form book out of the window? So just because "anything can happen", does that mean all events in the sample size now have an equal chance of occurring?
The only thing coming short out of this exchange is your sanity and selective amnesia which seems so dire that would put any person with a reasonable intelligence to shame.
I wrote another long piece to refute your points then at the end of it I realise that whatever i say isn't going to make any difference towards your outlook to it... Therefore, I will just try to keep this short and simple to summarize my views on it with the 2nd leg just a little over an hour away, I think its better i spend my time preparing for the match rather than waste any more time on this.
All i want to say is if you had concentrate more on my valid points and reasons rather than on me it would have been better... Unfortunately, in your eagerness to get back at me because I pointed out your mistakes, you became personal... I like to say getting personal with me doesn't help cos I am quite a cool person... I don't lose my temper easily...
It was fun while it lasted, but since it started to get personal, it isn't fun anymore... at least not to me. What I found out over our exchanged was subconsciously you want to win, expect to win wherever they played and anything less is not acceptable to you... although I am already beginning to think you will also deny this. Anyway, I can more or less see why you relate to Keane so strongly now... All I can say is we have very different views to things... For me yes i can accept 2nd best, not a problem, i dare to say it. I hope they win, and would be very happy if they do... But I can also accept it if others do better than us, they deserve to win for instance 2002 - 2006. This is football, winning and losing with whatever tactics or strategy employed is just part and parcel of any sports... The club entrust their squad to their manager and we just have to accept his decisions... But don't worry... If they are poor, he won't be there very long.
Anyway, like i have said... It has been fun while it lasted... You go have a good day now alright...
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
I wrote another long piece to refute your points then at the end of it I realise that whatever i say isn't going to make any difference towards your outlook to it... Therefore, I will just try to keep this short and simple to summarize my views on it with the 2nd leg just a little over an hour away, I think its better i spend my time preparing for the match rather than waste any more time on this.
All i want to say is if you had concentrate more on my valid points and reasons rather than on me it would have been better... Unfortunately, in your eagerness to get back at me because I pointed out your mistakes, you became personal... I like to say getting personal with me doesn't help cos I am quite a cool person... I don't lose my temper easily...
It was fun while it lasted, but since it started to get personal, it isn't fun anymore... at least not to me. What I found out over our exchanged was subconsciously you want to win, expect to win wherever they played and anything less is not acceptable to you... although I am already beginning to think you will also deny this. Anyway, I can more or less see why you relate to Keane so strongly now... All I can say is we have very different views to things... For me yes i can accept 2nd best, not a problem, i dare to say it. I hope they win, and would be very happy if they do... But I can also accept it if others do better than us, they deserve to win for instance 2002 - 2006. This is football, winning and losing with whatever tactics or strategy employed is just part and parcel of any sports... The club entrust their squad to their manager and we just have to accept his decisions... But don't worry... If they are poor, he won't be there very long.
Anyway, like i have said... It has been fun while it lasted... You go have a good day now alright...
You could go on refuting what you want, but it still doesn't alter the fact you can't grasp the most fundamental difference in terms of the most rudimentary definition imaginable - the distinction between intent and action (not withstanding the fact Man Utd have since gone on to win the tie).
The only thing you have done throughout this is, in your own words, "shift the goalposts" and resort to witchhunting technical errors which is a crusade that I couldn't even be bothered to embark on. For the record, if I wanted to get personal, I'd first take you on in your ill-conceived definition of "boardroom turbulence" (and that's just 1 of many I could find with my eyes closed - all in exchange for your desperate desire to point out my erroneous remark on G14 which is about your biggest triumph and claim to fame here). Apparently, doing so would be futile on someone extremely dense who has enough trouble distinguishing elementary logic and fundamental distinctions obvious to just about everyone else with a rational mind.
The fact you could perceive anything to be personal when nothing you've mentioned has been coherently logical and convincing just about sums up what this whole bit has been about - a desperate attempt to drive home futile points that wouldn't withstand what is backed up by statistics, facts, logic and reason. Before you jump the gun and accuse me of making presumptions, let's just analyse one of your final assumptions which still illustrates your inability to comprehend the elementary distinction between intent and action.
"What I found out over our exchanged was subconsciously you want to win, expect to win wherever they played and anything less is not acceptable to you... although I am already beginning to think you will also deny this. Anyway, I can more or less see why you relate to Keane so strongly now" --> Go over this quote again. While it's probably true to say nobody plays to lose (however much anyone wants to deny that or excuse their incompetence), you still don't get the geist of what is "unacceptable" to me - the lack of effort/endeavour to try to win (and not the winning itself, although I'm not saying winning is immaterial). That is an intent, winning is an action/outcome. To quantify your misconception, I'd have more readily accepted a 1-0 defeat in the first leg had United played the way they did in the second leg and take the game to Barcelona - that would certainly have been more respectable and acceptable than the rubbish served up at the Nou Camp that churned out the 0-0 draw. Clearly, had I been as obssessed with winning as you claim it to be, rather than playing to win, I'd have gladly advocated Mourinho's famous results-oriented psyche and judge them solely on the result and not the performance. I don't think it's too much to ask, as fans, that the team you support (you may not agree with this, but that's fine and you're perfectly entitled to your take) put in their best effort to make the most of their chances instead of offering your blind loyalty/support in return for some slipshod and pathetic displays (if you need any evidence I'm not alone in this endeavour, just pay attention to the jeering you'd observe from the fans of certain clubs - and I mean fans of some of the biggest clubs in Europe - who would have an even more vehement go at their teams than I have). Just to illustrate how I could never fathom how you could even give credit to United's abysmal performance in the 1st leg (note I'm talking about the performance here), which should be obvious even to the most biased and stoic United fan, take a look at http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round=15108/match=301914/report=pr.html . After the euphoria/delusions of the first leg had died down (when Ferguson proclaimed the 0-0 draw to leave United with a "marvellous chance" of going to the final), a more sombre and realistic assessment by Ferguson on the eve of the return leg read the lines of the first leg being "probably our poorest performance in Europe this season". Surely, that point cannot be lost on you, can it?
From start to end, I can never fathom the "personal" element in a discourse which was merely a reflection of opinions. Rather, your choice to focus on the style of delivery, rather than the substance of what is being delivered, is probably what has caused you to read into the "personal" nature of a discourse which I never regarded quite the same way as you did.
For all your hapless ranting, illogical and incoherent arguments (and whatever enjoyment - or lack thereof - you seem to have derived from this although I remain as keen as ever to reiterate all I have doing is drive home my point), the only difference I have come to realize that is remotely rational between us would be that you're a bigger advocate of blind faith through following your team blindly than I am (or will ever be). Clearly, accepting anyone's decisions blindly - and unstintingly sticking by him regardless of those decisions being right or wrong - isn't the way to go.
All said and done, for all the differences in opinions, there's still a scant consolation in the way of a similarity between us in terms of what we want United's destiny to be. Perhaps, it's just that you need to learn to appreciate the means required to achieve the goals are not necessarily universal in nature even if the goals remained fundamentally the same.