Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I don't think so, as Moyes was publicly Fergie's choice, I don't think his ego would allow him to be seen to make such a mistake, I think he had genuine faith that Moyes would be a good fit.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Circus ManUnitus - Nobody's At The Wheel
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
I don't think so, as Moyes was publicly Fergie's choice, I don't think his ego would allow him to be seen to make such a mistake, I think he had genuine faith that Moyes would be a good fit.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Fergie was an impossible act to follow. I had thought they might go for a gamble choice knowing he could be jettisoned and leave an easier task for the real successor. However, I don't think Moyes was that choice, certainly not in Fergie's mind. Could the board have been more cynical? While I don't think so, the perceived failure of the chosen one has removed the spectre of Fergie and left a much easy position for LVG.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Ferguson was always going to be tough for most to follow. They needed someone... not Moyes.
They had the chance to get Mourinho, but chose Moyes. Got it right this summer with LvG though.
They had the chance to get Mourinho, but chose Moyes. Got it right this summer with LvG though.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
...and suffering from years of Fergie neglect...
theyve always been a long ball team. man utd have never really played "attractive" football in the sense of tiki-taka. ferguson's teams were all about winning the ball quickly, and then getting it out wide for the wingers to beat a man and whip a cross/long-ball in. all their wingers have been in the kanchelskis, giggs or beckham mold. ronaldo is the anomaly (and man utd changed a bit when they had ronaldo). and the most succesful man utd strikers were penalty box players who thrived on long balls sent into the box. van nistelrooy, york, solksjaer, cole etc.
rooney and scholes are technically superb players but their roles became very limited under fergusons teams imo. these guys are technical geniuses, but in scholes' case, his job was basically to win the ball and give it nicely to beckham (who would proceed to hit a 40 yard long ball into the box). and ferguson turned rooney into a version of van nistelrooy imo. in the sense that his job as a striker was to get the ball out wide, and then run into the box asap.
i personally always thought chelsea under mourinho's first spell were far more enjoyable to watch than man utd.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
are you suggesting that kanchelskis, giggs and beckham were similar? (my GHod, i initially wrote "are" there, just dawned on me that all 3 are retired now)
likewise Yorke and RvN? i don't think any of the 3 thrived on long balls, they all did their best work being played in behind or receiving it short to feet as i recall
i don't think scholes was ever giving the job of winning it, he famously couldn't tackle, i'd say that rather than limit his role Fergie repeatedly did everything he could to build the team around him, he was used as Cantona had been beforehand, everyone else was moving to make him space
i always found united to be the best team to watch myself (chelsea were pretty good too i agree), everything was done with pace and a purpose, yes they would bombard the box when they needed a goal and Fergie would have 6 strikers on the pitch by the end but by and large it worked
likewise Yorke and RvN? i don't think any of the 3 thrived on long balls, they all did their best work being played in behind or receiving it short to feet as i recall
i don't think scholes was ever giving the job of winning it, he famously couldn't tackle, i'd say that rather than limit his role Fergie repeatedly did everything he could to build the team around him, he was used as Cantona had been beforehand, everyone else was moving to make him space
i always found united to be the best team to watch myself (chelsea were pretty good too i agree), everything was done with pace and a purpose, yes they would bombard the box when they needed a goal and Fergie would have 6 strikers on the pitch by the end but by and large it worked
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
If Fergie's team were 'mainly long ball' then the rest of the PL has been Pulis' Stoke for years :lol:
my comments were a bit tongue in cheek tbh. but i definitely do not think they were as attractive to the eye as pundits made out. i can see that wenger's arsenal were attractive, as are guardiola's two teams and spain too for example. but i always felt man utd were just doing the same things as most of the other teams in the league, but just more efficiently. i felt we matched them for attractiveness during the late 90's/ early 2000's. but we were just not very good.
its a bit like west ham fans today. just because they are winning some games, they think their overall play has got prettier too. no it hasnt. its still long balls into the box, or direct balls down the channels. the same style of football allardyce has been playing for years. theyve just got better players to implement big sam's football. likewise, man utd just had the best players to implement a pretty standard british style of football
its a bit like west ham fans today. just because they are winning some games, they think their overall play has got prettier too. no it hasnt. its still long balls into the box, or direct balls down the channels. the same style of football allardyce has been playing for years. theyve just got better players to implement big sam's football. likewise, man utd just had the best players to implement a pretty standard british style of football
Last edited:
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
I see where you are coming from up to a point.
Fergie in his first 10 years was very limited when they competed in Europe, but slowly he changed the style of the team to be able to play as 'British' as necessary but also be flexible enough in Europe to start consistently get to the latter stages of the CL. The signing of Ronaldo and then Rooney allowed them to inject far more skill and tactical flexibility in the wing-forward areas. When Tevaz and then Berbatov later arrived it made them get away with a lack of investment in the CM areas for year. Of course now LVG (and before him Moyes) has started picking up the tab.
What Fergie's team did that almost no-one bar maybe Mourinho's Chelski could do was to make a game last right up until the final minute wiht that never-say-die-it-takes-a-second-to-score-goal attitude which only the very best coaches can harness in a squad imo.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Indeed...
nice goal, but hardly compares to what barcelona have done recently or the henry,pires,bergkamp era. effectively, its just laboured passing throughout, but they got a goal via an indiviual piece of brilliance.
i agree with this to a degree. but this isnt an example of "attractive" football. its just another example that utd could "smash and grab" effectively. btw, im not saying theres anything wrong with playing like this (or like allardyce's teams), but that it would be wrong to label it as attractive.