Football: Season 2004/5 Discussion Thread.

[PaulEMoz]

Let's see if my second team (Plymouth) can do any better, and then I hope my Ex's team lose (Newcastle).

I don't!

That's quite a banana skin we've got tomorrow, though, and if anyone is capable of chucking it away, it's us. It should be an easy win, but with no properly fit strikers and a dodgy defence, who knows?

[Dio]

It's amazing how a series of poor calls by the ref ( not giving a handball or the resulting following offside ) can result in a 3-1 defeat for Villa.

Only saw the last 15 minutes, but Villa looked awful. I think everyone's agreed the second goal was offside though.

I am also a bit worried about tomorrow. Very similar to the WBA game last week. 4-5-1 will probably keep them out but I'm not sure where the goals are coming from.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Old Trafford

Man U: 0 - 0: (Non-league) Exeter

Have you seen the United team sheet? Ferguson being an arrogant fuck again - serve him right if they get dumped.

It's not arrogant at all, and if you were playing Championship Manager or summat, you'd do exactly the same thing (if you had any sense, at least). United clearly do want to win the FA Cup - their recent record in it shows that they're still trying to make up for the disgraceful decision not to enter a few years ago. But your job as a Man U manager, especially at this point in time, is to put out the weakest side that you think can do the job. With a packed schedule (you can't give up on the League yet, you're still in the Champs League and the Carling Cup) and less strength in depth than United have had in living memory, you just can't afford to put out your first-choice side at every game. In the face of Chelsea's limitless resources (even by the financial standards of United they're in a different league now), you have to manage your own wisely in order to get the maximum out of them.

Ryan Giggs' recent performances show the benefit of giving even the fittest of star players a bit of a rest from time to tume, and United's tradition of bringing young players through the ranks also depends on giving those players a blooding at some point, and some big-atmosphere experience in an environment where they (hopefully) won't suffer a dispiriting thumping. As a Conference side (and one recently within a hair's breadth of closing down at that), Exeter really should have been straightforward prey for even the rawest 11 on United's books - credit to them that they weren't, and Phil Neville was gracious after the game, saying that they deserved at least their draw - but at the end United had half a first-choice side on the pitch and still couldn't beat them. So the idea that the choice of team was "arrogant" is, unfortunately, just another example of the hypocrisy of the nation's legion of ABUs.

[Zoot]

Old Trafford

Man U: 0 - 0: (Non-league) Exeter

Have you seen the United team sheet? Ferguson being an arrogant fuck again - serve him right if they get dumped.

It's not arrogant at all, and if you were playing Championship Manager or summat, you'd do exactly the same thing (if you had any sense, at least). United clearly do want to win the FA Cup - their recent record in it shows that they're still trying to make up for the disgraceful decision not to enter a few years ago. But your job as a Man U manager, especially at this point in time, is to put out the weakest side that you think can do the job. With a packed schedule (you can't give up on the League yet, you're still in the Champs League and the Carling Cup) and less strength in depth than United have had in living memory, you just can't afford to put out your first-choice side at every game. In the face of Chelsea's limitless resources (even by the financial standards of United they're in a different league now), you have to manage your own wisely in order to get the maximum out of them.

Ryan Giggs' recent performances show the benefit of giving even the fittest of star players a bit of a rest from time to tume, and United's tradition of bringing young players through the ranks also depends on giving those players a blooding at some point, and some big-atmosphere experience in an environment where they (hopefully) won't suffer a dispiriting thumping. As a Conference side (and one recently within a hair's breadth of closing down at that), Exeter really should have been straightforward prey for even the rawest 11 on United's books - credit to them that they weren't, and Phil Neville was gracious after the game, saying that they deserved at least their draw - but at the end United had half a first-choice side on the pitch and still couldn't beat them. So the idea that the choice of team was "arrogant" is, unfortunately, just another example of the hypocrisy of the nation's legion of ABUs.

What's an ABU, Stuart, I just want to know before I reply to why you are calling me a hypocrite?.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

"Anyone But United".

[Sickboy]

I fear we might be entering into a slightly neater, but no less excruciating era ruled by the ABCs.

[Zoot]

"Anyone But United".

Ah, thanks for that. Well, in that you case you should probably know that I am a United fan - have been for 38 years since I saw George Best doing "keepie-up" on our local TV station in 1966. So, I have been through the first European Cup, the barren years, relagation to the old second division, and the glory years of the 90's.

I have had tussles on here with people who I think are, in your words, "ABU", one very recently, and will always stand my ground when defending my club.

However, I stand by my right to call Ferguson arrogant, because he has displayed many times an attitude that, in my opinion, is disrespectful to the opposition. United have lost too many games in recent years where he has chosen to rest key players. You are not wrong to say that it is reasonable to play the strongest side comensurate with the ability to win a game. However, Ferguson's arrogance stems from his assesment of what the strongest side is.

You make the point that United have a strong youth policy, buty the emergence of Scholes, the Nevilles, Beckham et al was not on a piecemeal basis. They played consistently over a long period of time, and melded into a strong team. It is much different putting players in a team who are not familiar with playing together. You can have all the skill in the world, but if the players haven't got the experience of playing together on a regular basis, there is the likelihood that they will struggle.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

However, I stand by my right to call Ferguson arrogant, because he has displayed many times an attitude that, in my opinion, is disrespectful to the opposition.

Isn't that just "erroneous" rather than arrogant? Come on, who among us would have said, before the game, a United B-team wouldn't be enough to see off a near-bankrupt Conference outfit? Or, put another way - who here is surprised Ferguson put out an understrength team? And who, in the knowledge that that was likely, decided to put some money on Exeter? I'm guessing nobody, so if Ferguson is "arrogant" in this respect, then so are we all. (NB I wouldn't contend an allegation that he's generally a bit arrogant on occasion. As an Aberdeen fan, it was one of the most valuable qualities in the success he brought us. He taught the players that they shouldn't fear Ibrox and Parkhead, that you should go there thinking that you're going to win.)

You make the point that United have a strong youth policy, buty the emergence of Scholes, the Nevilles, Beckham et al was not on a piecemeal basis. They played consistently over a long period of time, and melded into a strong team. It is much different putting players in a team who are not familiar with playing together.

Then surely that's a reason for putting the youngsters in wholesale, as he did yesterday? If you put in one or two, you get the problems you imply above. Putting in a whole bunch in against Exeter who normally play together in the youth team or whatever seems to me to be exactly the course of action you're suggesting - they get the benefits of knowing each other's play, along with the new experience of the big competitive match in front of the capacity crowd.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

I fear we might be entering into a slightly neater, but no less excruciating era ruled by the ABCs.

In fairness, I don't have a problem with people taking either of those views in themselves. It's perfectly legitimate to hate a particular team for a variety of reasons. I just hate the double standards that so often go with such a view (see all the bullshit around last week's Man U-Spurs game). I genuinely would rather see anyone win the Premiership this year than Chelsea. Even Liverpool.

[koworld]

I still remember when United were a laughably bad team of 'stars' - holding on to that has seen me through the reign of Sir Alec Angry.

[Sickboy]

I fear we might be entering into a slightly neater, but no less excruciating era ruled by the ABCs.

In fairness, I don't have a problem with people taking either of those views in themselves. It's perfectly legitimate to hate a particular team for a variety of reasons. I just hate the double standards that so often go with such a view (see all the bullshit around last week's Man U-Spurs game). I genuinely would rather see anyone win the Premiership this year than Chelsea. Even Liverpool.

Oooooh, you had me there. Right up till the last two words.

[Zen-Chan]

Rangers v Celtic in the cup on Sky Sports 1 at 12:30 (sold out in minutes when the tickets went on sale, bastard!)

We could have probably done with holding onto Boumsong for this one!

[Zoot]

You make the point that United have a strong youth policy, buty the emergence of Scholes, the Nevilles, Beckham et al was not on a piecemeal basis. They played consistently over a long period of time, and melded into a strong team. It is much different putting players in a team who are not familiar with playing together.

Then surely that's a reason for putting the youngsters in wholesale, as he did yesterday? If you put in one or two, you get the problems you imply above. Putting in a whole bunch in against Exeter who normally play together in the youth team or whatever seems to me to be exactly the course of action you're suggesting - they get the benefits of knowing each other's play, along with the new experience of the big competitive match in front of the capacity crowd.

No. It is justification if they play together on a regular basis they get to know each other and play as a team. When you just chuck them in for one match, it causes problems - it is a similar thing to the way that England suffer - the "stars" in the England team should make a great national team, but they often come unstuck because they are not used to playing together, hence Erikkson's demands for longer training sessions.

And my point about arrogance was not specifically directed at the Exeter match - if you look at my first post you will see that a used a made-up quote to talk about Bolton. The same applies to many of the matches that United have lost or drawn when fielding an understrength team.

Are Chelsea nay better this year because Mourinho has dropped the squad rotation system previously employed? You bet your ass they are.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

No. It is justification if they play together on a regular basis they get to know each other and play as a team. When you just chuck them in for one match, it causes problems -

But that's what I just said. Presumably they DO normally play together, but in the youth team.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Rangers v Celtic in the cup on Sky Sports 1 at 12:30 (sold out in minutes when the tickets went on sale, bastard!)

We could have probably done with holding onto Boumsong for this one!

He's certainly been holding the Hunnish defence together in the games I've seen this season. Having just spent the price of a small house in Kensington on a new telly, I think I need to get Sky Sports back.