Page 1 of 3
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:16 pmby Owzat
It is his opinion and it isn't as crazy as it sounds, certainly if you compare key players from both sides
Van Nistelrooy vs Owen - close
Scholes vs Gerrard - slightly different players, hard to compare
Keane vs Hamann - Gerrard would hold his own
Ferdinand vs Hyypia - not much in it
Silvestre vs Henchoz - not much in it
Howard vs Dudek - not much in it
Giggs vs Kewell - nothing in it
Saha vs Baros - probably manu player
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:37 pmby Scottbot
I agree, man for man there is not that much to choose betweent the 2 teams. Which is why i remain confident that if a new manager comes in he will not need to make wholesale personnel changes.
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:40 pmby Owzat
I think some of the main differences are :
- overall strength of squad
- attitude
- style
- performance (individual)
- the MANAGER
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:58 pmby redandblue
Owzat is about right.
I think that Henchoz's comments were foolish in the extreme. We are light years away from United in terms of results, performances and trophies.
I do believe that Van Nistelrooy IS a better striker than our dear Michael. Scholes is sensational and even the Neville Sisters know how to get a result.
The key difference is a winning ATTITUDE which United have in spades and a great MANAGER.
United ALWAYS seem to have at least two players in the six yard box whenever there is an attack. What do we have? Er, not much.
On the other hand, if Henchoz is saying that the players THINK that they are as good as United, then perhaps that is implicit criticism of mad Houllier. Now, instead of being foolish, that would be really smart.
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:36 pmby Thor Viking
Owzat wrote:I think some of the main differences are :
- overall strength of squad
- attitude
- style
- performance (individual)
- the MANAGER
As far as I know the two teams I agree. However, the best team in Norway, Rosenborg, has some postulates that I think United is better at than L`pool :
1 continuity, in the club in general and in the squad
2 always make sure you set your mate in a position where he is best !
3 stability
How long have Fergie been manager and how long has GH ?
How long has Nevilles,Giggs, Scholes and Keane been in United. How long has the board been there, except mr. Kenyon was it, bought by Chelski ?
Do you think this is important in pointing at the differences ?
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:38 pmby Owzat
A manager who has been there five years is unlikely to achieve what Ferguson did. In some ways Ferguson got lucky with the signings of Keane, Schmeichel, Cantona, Pallister and Bruce working with the youngsters manu were lucky enough to have
If time is an issue, how come it took Wenger only a year or two to do the double and, I don't recall exact details, but Graham did similarly well when he was Arsenal manager
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:06 pmby 116-1065305004
Well on this one I agree with Henchoz, I mean it was the same squad that finished higher than United two seasons ago(despite the turmoil of losing our manager for more than half of that season), I have always said we dont need many changes, just get rid of a few of the dead wood and a change in manager and we will have the same quality in our squad as your Man.Utd and Arsenals.
Posted:
Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:30 pmby big al
We have good players, we do need three more, especially in the right mid. The problem is all about management. With the right man at the helm I think we could give Man U a run for there money.
Problem is however that Arsenal and Chelsea could be on the way up and if they establish themselves they'll be hard to catch particularily on the finance front. Arsenal coculd easily fill a ground with 20.000 more fans a week thats a potential income of just over £750,000 per fortnight just under £20m a year including cup and freindly revenue. As for Chelsea they have the finances to emulate Madrid already. Biggest bonus is they are both in the Capital city. Lots of players have said that life in London is preferable to the large provencial cities.
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:59 amby Starbridge42
I dunno, Man U does pretty well with ticket sales and so do we.
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:07 pmby Owzat
manu haven't had rvn missing much and other bits of luck have worked in their favour
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:41 pmby Thor Viking
Owzat wrote:manu haven't had rvn missing much and other bits of luck have worked in their favour
This needs translating I`m afraid ! 
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:42 pmby Owzat
It means rvn hasn't been injured much at manu
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:47 pmby Thor Viking
Owzat wrote:It means rvn hasn't been injured much at manu
Ok -it makes more sence, but wot is rvn ?
Posted:
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:48 pmby Owzat
Thor Viking wrote:Owzat wrote:It means rvn hasn't been injured much at manu
Ok -it makes more sence, but wot is rvn ?
I'll give you a clue
