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...