Are Man Utd. the best team in the world atm?

Xavi6

United need an out and out goalscorer and a right back to be considered the best team in the world.

Peyton Manning

Xavi6 wrote: »

United need an out and out goalscorer and a right back to be considered the best team in the world.

Agreed. Maybe it doesnt have to be a world class goalscorer - Manucho could prove to be the backup we need - but a world class right back and we are sorted. As for being the best club in the world - impossible to tell. Certainly, it would seem that we are playing the best and most attractive football in Europe, outside of that I dont know. Having said that though, every club has other clubs that they are completely ineffective against. For instace, whereas we beat Arsenal quite comfortably and they beat Milan quite comfortably, I still think Milan would beat us over a 2 legged tie just because of the fact that theyre team is the perfect foil for our relentless attack. Having said that, I do think its astounding that we are able to balance such a frightening attacking line up with such a strong defence, and I do enjoy the thought that we are possibly the best in the world

LuckyCharms

While we are playing some great football at the moment, our season totally hinges on rooney and ronaldo staying fit so currently , the best 11 on paper is prolly a tie up with barca and utd while the best squad in europe is currently without a doubt chelsea.

People can say what they want about rooney being inconsistent and what not, the fact is rooney is probably the most important player at utd currently,he gets played out of position alot by fergie to in order to meet whatever the game requires,He isnt an out n out goalscorer but he was never meant to be,that is simply not his game.

While Ronaldo is playing some great football, easily the most in form player in world football currently,rooney is the guy that makes utd tick.

Xavi6

LuckyCharms wrote: »

While Ronaldo is playing some great football, easily the most in form player in world football currently,rooney is the guy that makes utd thick.

Fixed that for ya

Mitch Connor

Rooney the most on form player in the world? This the same rooney who has almost completely lost the ability to score all but the easiest of chances? He is working as hard for the team as he ever does, but he is well off his best form, both in a creative and goal-scoring sense.

hanton12

I love this forum and how people exagerate how if you are the best in the Premiership, it means the best in Europe, which means the best in the world. There is a huge case for Utd to be classed as the best in Europe right now. I had doubts over their team last night and their ability to perform in latter stages of the competition (and in fariness, still do on that point. For the amount of times Utd have got to the knock outs, their record is very very poor for having such good teams). But last night was a huge result for them, and Ronaldo is justifying his acclaim right now (another over who I had doubts on his big game capabilities). He has scored in a good few games in a row now, and 2 of them against big games in Liverpool and Roma.

But the thread title should be Europe, not the world. How can you compare how Utd would do against Estudiantes, River Plate, Boca Juniors, Flamengo, Fluminese, Botafogo or even the likes of Atlas, Quito and Cienciano who are doing really well right now in the Copa Libertadores?

English teams have a poor record in World Club games, so to give Utd the best team in the world is a bit premature, especially as most wouldnt even consider any other leagues outside of Europe. Europe isnt the world, and the Premiership certainly isnt.

_blank_

hanton12 wrote: »

I love this forum and how people exagerate how if you are the best in the Premiership, it means the best in Europe, which means the best in the world. There is a huge case for Utd to be classed as the best in Europe right now. I had doubts over their team last night and their ability to perform in latter stages of the competition (and in fariness, still do on that point. For the amount of times Utd have got to the knock outs, their record is very very poor for having such good teams). But last night was a huge result for them, and Ronaldo is justifying his acclaim right now (another over who I had doubts on his big game capabilities). He has scored in a good few games in a row now, and 2 of them against big games in Liverpool and Roma.

But the thread title should be Europe, not the world. How can you compare how Utd would do against Estudiantes, River Plate, Boca Juniors, Flamengo, Fluminese, Botafogo or even the likes of Atlas, Quito and Cienciano who are doing really well right now in the Copa Libertadores?

English teams have a poor record in World Club games, so to give Utd the best team in the world is a bit premature, especially as most wouldnt even consider any other leagues outside of Europe. Europe isnt the world, and the Premiership certainly isnt.

Best post in the thread.

Nalz

DesF wrote: »

Best post in the thread.

yeah good post. DesF, can you shorten your feckin signature....its too fcukin long!

Xavi6 wrote: »

United need an out and out goalscorer and a right back to be considered the best team in the world.

To be a complete team maybe! But ATM who is better then them and in better form? Also I don't think this question can be answered as its all about opinions...the fact that certain teams win major competitions doesnt even give them the right to say that...imo.

I'd say they just shade it. Better team than Chelsea, Arsenal, Lyon, Inter, Munich, Shalke, Roma, Barca and Madrid if league form is anything to go by. Again, I think thats not the best criteria to compare such things

Xavi6

Trilla wrote: »

But ATM who is better then them and in better form?

Trilla wrote: »

Also I don't think this question can be answered as its all about opinion

Then why ask?!?!

_blank_

Trilla wrote: »

DesF, can you shorten your feckin signature....its too fcukin long!

Long width, or long height
?

Nalz

its too wide!

Xavi6 wrote: »

Then why ask?!?!

Well I meant was that is the in form team over a season the best team at the moment, or a team thats proven it over a few years. Question is too vague and will always be interpreted differently. Is it United, in Europe, are the in form team so therefore are the best in the world? I dont think thats fair to say

Mr Alan

lads, cool your ****ing jets here.

good result last night, but its not like ye wiped Roma off the park. Honours are handed out at the end of a season for a reason.

If you win the PL, you are the best in the England.

If you win the CL, you are the best in Europe.

If you win both, you are a great team this year.

At the minute you are the leagues form team, but yet Chelsea are only wat, 5 points off ye with a game at the bridge still to come. It aint over.

Ye could end up winning nothing yet and then i may be forced to resurrect this thread to laugh at people!

Unearthly

Didn't you claim the league was over 2 months ago when Arsenal took a 5 point lead?

MIN2511

Mr Alan wrote: »

lads, cool your ****ing jets here.

good result last night, but its not like ye wiped Roma off the park. Honours are handed out at the end of a season for a reason.

What, surely 2 goals was really good! Wiped off Roma; are you asking for 5 goals?

Mr Alan wrote: »

If you win the PL, you are the best in the England.

On our way

Mr Alan wrote: »

If you win the CL, you are the best in Europe.

a little too early but we'll try

Mr Alan wrote: »

If you win both, you are a great team this year.

Mr Alan wrote: »

At the minute you are the leagues form team, but yet Chelsea are only wat, 5 points off ye with a game at the bridge still to come. It aint over.

5 points is sill something, bring on Avram

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ye could end up winning nothing yet and then i may be forced to resurrect this thread to laugh at people!

Now that i would not agree with... what team do you support again?

PHB

I wouldn't trade Rooney for any striker in the world. Uniteds first 11 will, and should, always include Rooney and Tevez if we are attacking. United do not need an out and out striker in the first 11, they do however need one for the squad. Some changes you need to be able to mix it up, no doubt about that. Still, wouldn't trade Rooney for anyone.

smemon

PHB wrote: »

United do not need an out and out striker in the first 11, they do however need one for the squad. Some changes you need to be able to mix it up, no doubt about that. Still, wouldn't trade Rooney for anyone.

I agree with that. I think non-Utd fans think we need another Ruud or a Torres simple because it's traditional that all great sides have one main man that you bank on to get goals.

With Van Nistelrooy, you had a target man, yes. But his lack of tracking back and goal hanging ability made him a liability when United didn't have the ball. It was basically a 9 man defence with him in the side.

Jose Mourinho first adopted this notion of having a 10 man defence without the ball. We seen Duff, Robben etc... 'ruined' because of it, but overall, it worked as it meant Chelsea could get the ball first and foremost due to the sheer numbers they had behind it.

With the talent on show, they were good enough to hold on to it and comfortable to run with it.

It's this work rate which made Chelsea invincible and set new standards in the premeir league, so Utd have now adopted a similar approach.

An out and out striker would not benefit Utd at all imo in 90% of matches. I agree, it's a nice option to have though to turn a match.

_blank_

MIN2511 wrote: »

Your post

Mr Alan says he'll be back later to "rebuke your nonsense". I can hardly wait.:D

Mr. Presentable

Jazzy wrote: »

I know I know, a very controversial thread title.

Anyhow, imo right now (as much as it pains me to say as im a Liverpool fan) Utd are the best team in the world. 15 goals conceded in the league, 5 conceded in the CL. drubbing liverpool, arsenal, villa, newcastle (scored 11 goals against them over 2 games). breezing through to the semi's of the CL (well, almost). they have the worlds best player atm (ronaldo) a fantastic work ethic, playing brilliant football and the most solid defence in the world. they've scored 68 goals so far in the league (thats more then the current leaders in seira a and la liga) and there is quite literally no team in the world they fear (maybe man citeh )

as for who else is better then them - we have Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Chelski and maybe (but not really) Arsenal.
Barca atm are the only team that I think have the potential to be better but they havent had the best season so far. next season though (if they sort their defence) they would be well up for it.

I cant really see Real, Inter and Chelski being better then them and if god came down to me and said "Who is the best football team in the world??!!!" id have to say Utd. I just cant justify saying anyone else atm.

What do others think?

Who knows, maybe, but liverpool, arsenal, villa, newcastle are not the only benchmark. Current World champions at club level are Milan and Internationally Italy - neither of those is Man Utd. What have they won this year? Or last year or the year before to justify a claim they are the best?

Still, I say maybe. Roma, over which victory I take it has prompted the post, are not the be-all and end-all. And yet, according to your team manager, Man Utd were very lucky last night.

So, maybe, but way to win friends for your team and their supporters with posts like this. Win something first. Then maybe.

_blank_

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, maybe, but way to win friends for your team and their supporters with posts like this.

rofl.

Pepe LeFrits

United are the best side in the world at the moment.

That doesn't necessarily mean they will win anything, nor do they have to win the CL to be the best.

They are the best side in the premiership, and they are better than the best that Serie A, La Liga and the other leagues have to offer. Who else is there?

Murtinho

herbieflowers wrote: »

well if they win the CL you might be justified in saying so...

More often than not the team that wins it isnt the best team in the world, Porto and that shower that wear pink who beat Milan a few yrs back for starters.

herbieflowers

Well considering that they're top of the league etc, I don't think you can make the same comparison tbh...

Jazzy

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, maybe, but way to win friends for your team and their supporters with posts like this. Win something first. Then maybe.

not trying to win friends or anything with this thread. I just feel that atm Utd. are the best in the world and wanted to hear what others thought of it. im not particularly happy that they are the best but oh well. its all up for debate. hence why i posted it. in a forum.

---

and yeah, if u are the best in europe ur the best in the world. just cos ppl dont like it doesnt make it not true

hanton12

Jazzy wrote: »

and yeah, if u are the best in europe ur the best in the world. just cos ppl dont like it doesnt make it not true

yeah, that really makes sense alright. How do you come up with that idea? Is the copa Liberatadores not good enough standard for you? Have a check on World club champions for the last 30 years or so, you'll find south american teams have won it more often. Or even look at the last 3 years of the tournament, Milan, Internacional and Sao Paulo being the champions.

just because you dont watch South American club football doesnt mean its automatically worse than the Champions League.

Jazzy

hanton12 wrote: »

just because you dont watch South American club football doesnt mean its automatically worse than the Champions League.

cos all those south american footballers who constantly say "its the greatest competition in the world" are all just liers.

from what ive seen of SA football it is not as good as the CL. not nearly. (not saying its bad either)
European clubs have the money, they literally pick out the best players from SA and bring them to europe. the best player last year (Lucas) is the 4th choice CM for the team currently lying 4th in the PL.
you can live a little daydream if u want where SA football teams are the equal of Utd. Real, AC, Juve et al and then say how winning a novelty competition that takes place in Japan or somewhere counts as being the best in the world.

it just sounds to me like you just dont like the idea

She Devil

I think they are fairly close ...
but i wouldn't be counting our chickens yet!

Bubs101

Back on topic, I defintely think that there is more talent in the Chelsea squad then the Man U one. They/we have a better keeper, better centre backs ( although Rio has been better this season) a far superior centre midfield (Ballack, Essien, Lamps etc.) a better goalscorer ( Drogba not to mention former golden boot winner now bench warmer Sheva) and better wingers (there's no doubting that Ronaldo is the best of them but overall I feel that 2 of ours (Cole and Malouda) are better than the sum of the parts of Ronaldo and Nani).

We just happen to have a terrible back room structure that completely disrupts are team, an assistant manager more qualified than the real manager and a lack of commeraderie in the team. Also like Inter's squad

Mad_Max

Bubs101 wrote: »

Back on topic, I defintely think that there is more talent in the Chelsea squad then the Man U one. They/we have a better keeper, better centre backs ( although Rio has been better this season) a far superior centre midfield (Ballack, Essien, Lamps etc.) a better goalscorer ( Drogba not to mention former golden boot winner now bench warmer Sheva) and better wingers (there's no doubting that Ronaldo is the best of them but overall I feel that 2 of ours (Cole and Malouda) are better than the sum of the parts of Ronaldo and Nani).

mmm im afraid i dont agree. Malouda is not great (isn't kalou playing ahead of him?). Nani imo is better atm and has more potential. Ballack and fat frank are not playing well and i dont think that can be defended. They may be better on paper than anderson, carrick, but they aint producing. Scheva is non existent in this argument he doesnt play.

Drogba is a class striker and as an out and out we have nothing to compare to him. Cech would be better keeper but only cause of age, i don't think VDS is playing bad by any stretch.

Bubs101

But I think most of that is down to form. After all, the players don't seem to respect Grant and Grant didn't necesarrily (?) want the player he has. First 11 vs. first 11 I think we have a better squad and we certainly have more in reserve

Bubs101

Bubs101 wrote: »

Back on topic, I defintely think that there is more talent in the Chelsea squad then the Man U one. They/we have a better keeper, better centre backs ( although Rio has been better this season) a far superior centre midfield (Ballack, Essien, Lamps etc.) a better goalscorer ( Drogba not to mention former golden boot winner now bench warmer Sheva) and better wingers (there's no doubting that Ronaldo is the best of them but overall I feel that 2 of ours (Cole and Malouda) are better than the sum of the parts of Ronaldo and Nani).

We just happen to have a terrible back room structure that completely disrupts are team, an assistant manager more qualified than the real manager and a lack of commeraderie in the team. Also like Inter's squad

I disagree.

VDS vs Cech - debatable. cech was invincible for a season or two but atm the only thing Cech has on Ed is age.

Ferdinand > Terry

Evra > Cole

Vidic > Carvalho

Hargreaves vs Makelele - a toss up, Makele is old now. Hargreaves > Mikel

Ronaldo > everyone.

Park = Kalou

Rooney = Drogba

Tevez = Anelka


Those 2 are hard to judge, Drogba and Anelka suit the Chelsea style better while Tev/Roon complement Uniteds play better. rememeber the players have to be judged on how they fit into the system. Hence why Shevchenko can be rated as ****e since he doesnt fit in at all despite being an (possible used to be) excellent player.

Nani < Cole

Ferreira = Neville and on this seasons form also = Brown

Essien > Carrick

Ballack > Anderson

Lampard = Scholes

I could go on but I feel Ive made my point. Player for player United are better IMO. Chelsea have some big names who dont do the business though Ill give you that.

Mr Alan

amazing how people see things differently. also worth mentioning the Chelsea players who are not in the below comparrisons, Wright Phillips,Schevchenko,Ben Haim, Bridge, Malouda, some pretty excllent players.

imo, Chelsea have the strongest squad in the world.

VDS < Cech, both pretty equal, Cech pips it on age.

Ferdinand > Terry, agreed

Evra > Cole, agreed

Vidic < Carvalho, think Carvalho is ****ing class tbh.

Hargreaves vs Makelele - a toss up my arse, even now with makeleles age, he is a different league to Hargreaves, i've actually not been impressed with Hargreaves at all since he signed.

Ronaldo > everyone,agree, with the possible exception of Drogba

Park = Kalou, fair enough

Rooney < Drogba, very different players, but Drogba is about the best in the world when on form, absolutely unplayable. Rooney on the other hand, is a hyped up Kuyt

Tevez = Anelka

Nani < Cole

Ferreira > Neville, Nevilles career is over.

Essien > Carrick

Ballack > Anderson

Lampard > Scholes, Lampard is a far more effectgive player than Scholes, another amazing player, but who is now, just too old.

Bubs101

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree.

VDS vs Cech - debatable. cech was invincible for a season or two but atm the only thing Cech has on Ed is age.

Ferdinand > Terry

Evra > Cole

Vidic > Carvalho

Hargreaves vs Makelele - a toss up, Makele is old now. Hargreaves > Mikel

Ronaldo > everyone.

Park = Kalou

Rooney = Drogba

Tevez = Anelka


Those 2 are hard to judge, Drogba and Anelka suit the Chelsea style better while Tev/Roon complement Uniteds play better. rememeber the players have to be judged on how they fit into the system. Hence why Shevchenko can be rated as ****e since he doesnt fit in at all despite being an (possible used to be) excellent player.

Nani < Cole

Ferreira = Neville and on this seasons form also = Brown

Essien > Carrick

Ballack > Anderson

Lampard = Scholes

I could go on but I feel Ive made my point. Player for player United are better IMO. Chelsea have some big names who dont do the business though Ill give you that.

I'd certainly have issue with some of your evaluations there.

Lampard is equal to Scholes now is he? Not only does Lamps have age on Scholes but he has about ten more goals a season on him and around 30 games. Far better player.

Rooney has not exactly shined since he left Everton and doesn't score enough goals and although you could argue that Drogba was crap when he came here first (I'd agree) his form for le Cote d'Ivore and Marseille would seem to back up that he is better.

Park= Kalou is not only a joke but you left out SWP and Malouda who are both better than him.

I also think it's unfair to say that Anelka is Tevez' equal. Anelka has much more experience than him without losing any of the qualities that made him big and scores much more goals.

If Hargreaves has age on Makalele which makes them equals than surely Mikel has age on Hargreaves??

Also think your claim that United's centre backs are better is suspect. For me, Carvalho is the best out of the four, then Vidic and Terry with Rio last and when you consider how important Terry is for Chelsea (remember how much points we lost without him last year?) I think he'd be on top. He's also a quality captain.

TBH, I would rate Neville ahead of Fereira and I can't really comment on Van Der Sar because I formed an opinion when he played for my other team (JUve) and cost us a Scudetto or two because he was so bad. Agree with Evra and Ronaldo obviously.

Also think Chelsea are much stronger in reserve. Alex, Bridge, Makalele, Mikel, SWP, Kalou are great substitutes.

Bubs101

Bubs101 wrote: »

Lampard is equal to Scholes now is he? Not only does Lamps have age on Scholes but he has about ten more goals a season on him and around 30 games. Far better player.

Doesnt lampard take the penalties?

Scholes is a better passer. Scholes has a better footballing brain. Scholes is a better playermaker. Lampard has a beter shot on him. Lampard plays further up so will obviously get more goasl. take age out and put prime Scholes in there and his goals increase then is Lampard better? Keep a straight face when answering that. Gerrard hasnt called Lampard the best player he's ever played with. henry hasnt called lampard a "complete player".

Bubs101 wrote:

Rooney has not exactly shined since he left Everton and doesn't score enough goals and although you could argue that Drogba was crap when he came here first (I'd agree) his form for le Cote d'Ivore and Marseille would seem to back up that he is better.

Are u having a laugh? Have u ever sat down and watched the contribution he makes to the United style of play?


4 defeats this season...all minus Rooney.


Next.

Bubs101 wrote:

Park= Kalou is not only a joke but you left out SWP and Malouda who are both better than him.

How is that a joke? Park is a great little squad player, full of energy. Kalou is about the same.= albeit with different qualities.

SWP/Malouda etc < Ronaldo

Bubs101 wrote:

I also think it's unfair to say that Anelka is Tevez' equal. Anelka has much more experience than him without losing any of the qualities that made him big and scores much more goals.

How is it unfair? Anelka is a striker, Tevez is a number 10 (32:D), so like i said its difficult to compare the strikers anyway cos they operate differently. Tevez has been great and hes only 23.

Bubs101 wrote:

If Hargreaves has age on Makalele which makes them equals than surely Mikel has age on Hargreaves??

Hargreaves is a better player. Age is not the only factor to consider.

Bubs101 wrote:

Also think your claim that United's centre backs are better is suspect. For me, Carvalho is the best out of the four, then Vidic and Terry with Rio last and when you consider how important Terry is for Chelsea (remember how much points we lost without him last year?) I think he'd be on top. He's also a quality captain.

Hahahahahahaha



Defensive record............ Watch Rio more. That is all.

Bubs101 wrote:

TBH, I would rate Neville ahead of Fereira and I can't really comment on Van Der Sar because I formed an opinion when he played for my other team (JUve) and cost us a Scudetto or two because he was so bad. Agree with Evra and Ronaldo obviously.

U can only call Juve "us" or Chelsea "us" not both, unless u have learned the art of juxtaposition. This in only acceptable if Roman buys Juve tbh:pac::pac:

Bubs101 wrote:

Also think Chelsea are much stronger in reserve. Alex, Bridge, Makalele, Mikel, SWP, Kalou are great substitutes.

So are Park, Saha (I know, when fit), Nani, Anderson, Pique, Foster, Hargreaves

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

take age out and put prime Scholes in there and his goals increase then is Lampard better? Keep a straight face when answering that. Gerrard hasnt called Lampard the best player he's ever played with. henry hasnt called lampard a "complete player".

HaHa Neil, put him in his prime?! unless SAF has a time machine he hasnt told anyone about thats impossible. Lampard NOW is better than scholes NOW.

Both Gerrard and Henry were refering to Scholes of a fair few moons ago.

anonymous_joe

I'd always be wary of shouting 'we're the best, look at us, lalala.'

Someone mentioned the 99ers not being quite as good as the team the next season - an interesting point. When Mourinho's Porto beat United, Scholes had a goal disallowed. A goal that even now looks legit. So clearly, a great big whack of bad luck ****ed the team over then, and made Mourinho not so much a good manager, as a veritable football God, simply because of his European Cup. (Everything else he won made him good. )

Now, the current Manchester United first 11, when playing together looks balanced and intelligent. Rooney's linking play has freed up the left flank, allowing Evra and Nani/Ronaldo huge scope to attack with a degree of freedom.

Carrick and Anderson are both having solid enough seasons. The wonderkid Anderson has transformed into the 'fairly solid, young, thus has potential' Anderson, which worries me a little, but even so, he has looked good, ignoring his more recent form. Hargreaves also looks skillful and tidy in that midfield, offering an interesting option when he's fully integrated into the team.

Defensively we've got 3 very good players, Ferdinand and Vidic who have a brilliant partnership and Evra. Right back remains a somewhat iffy proposition. If I'm honest I'm glad Neville's missed a lot of football, he's getting very old, and was never fast anyway. Brown sadly offers very little going forward.

The current United team aren't the strongest ever, but at the moment, a lot of teams in the world who would be candidates are misfiring. Barca look a bit dodgy in La Liga, Real rely too much on Van Nistelrooy, Valencia are doing their best to implode. In Italy Inter are dominant, but lack consistency in Europe, while the other Italian teams have fallen back, and look to be suffering due to the financial dominance of Spain and England. Germany and France are weaker than in the past. In essence, United could be considered the best by default - however, there's no guarentee that they'll be able to dominate in England. Moreover, if the Spanish pull themselves together in the next year or so, they'll probably race back to the top.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

HaHa Neil, put him in his prime?! unless SAF has a time machine he hasnt told anyone about thats impossible. Lampard NOW is better than scholes NOW.

Both Gerrard and Henry were refering to Scholes of a fair few moons ago.

Scholes is still a great asset and there are very few players out there who I'd trade him for even now. For me Lampard is over rated. He's an asset because he has a powerful shot but Scholes is a better passer/playmaker/co-ordinater than Lampard is or ever will be. Neither of them are good tacklers so thats not an issue.

Nalz

Hahahahaha Roy Keane the only great of 99, Beckham only average etc...my sides are splitting. Peter Schmeichel was the greatest keeper I ever saw, and Scholes, Stam, Yorke and Irwin were fantastic.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Vidic < Carvalho, think Carvalho is ****ing class tbh.

Carvalho has made many a mistake this season, nothing without Terry. I think Vidic would hold his own without Rio. If he made all those **** ups Chelsea did versus Spurs " Vidic is average" would be all over this site. Disagree completely

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ferreira > Neville, Nevilles career is over.

you know this how??? Ferreira is a donkey. full stop. Neville with one leg is better then that fool

Mr Alan

well was Nevilles last appearance for the Utd first team?

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

well was Nevilles last appearance for the Utd first team?

Injury is grounds to call him rubbish now?

PHB

Cech is better than VDS.
I think in terms of the defense, it's pretty even, except Ferdinand is better than everyone, and as such adds an extra level to Uniteds defence. Our first choce CB pairing is better than theirs, no doubt about that. Our LB is better, although is Cole was with us, I think he'd be better. Chelsea doesn't suit him. Our RB options are much much much better. Also, Brown is better than Ferreira.

Central midfield, I'd prefer Chelsea players, but I prefer Uniteds options. Anderson is better than Obi Mikel I think, Scholes is better than Lampard, Makelele/Essien are better than Hargreaves/Fletcher, and Carrick doesn't really have a similar player in the Chelsea squad, nor do Ballack, but Ballack is certainly a better player.
On the wings, Ronaldo pisses on all the Chelsea wingers. Giggs/Nani/Park vs. Cole/SWP/Malouda. Well since Malouda has been ****, and SWP is a shadow of the player he used to be, it's not a huge amount in it. Also, Cole is a magical player, but not in Ronaldos league.
Up front, Rooney and Tevez vs. Drogba and Anelka. Very different players. I'd prefer Rooney to anyone, including Drogba, but I think those are pretty even matches, albeit in very different ways. Chelsea however have more depth up front, in Shevchenko and Kalou.

As such, I think while Chelsea have the slight edge in terms of numbers, United have a better squad for the system they want to employ. Chelseas players don't suit any real workable system imo, except the narrow 4-4-2, which doesn't work in the premiership.

Also, United are very restricted by wages in comparison to Chelsea, and as such, have a better squad in that it costs much much much less.

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote: »

Injury is grounds to call him rubbish now?

no. hence the reason i didnt call him rubbish.

wat i did say was that his career is over, ie.he will not play consistantly at a top level imo.

how long has he been 2 weeks away from fitness? 9 months?

ntlbell

Tauren wrote: »

Z

Gary has always been average? Utter rubbish - he has been consistently one of the top right backs in the world, and if he didn't have a crappy tash, wasn't english and didn't play for United more people would admit it too. There are VERY FEW players I would have taken over him during the last decade.

I've been a untied fan for over 20 years, why would I have a problem admitting a united player was good?

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

No one said any of them were "sh|T"

well, if you only have 4 DECENT players, what does that make the rest of the squad, if not 'sh1t'?

Bubs101

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesnt lampard take the penalties?

Scholes is a better passer. Scholes has a better footballing brain. Scholes is a better playermaker. Lampard has a beter shot on him. Lampard plays further up so will obviously get more goasl. take age out and put prime Scholes in there and his goals increase then is Lampard better? Keep a straight face when answering that. Gerrard hasnt called Lampard the best player he's ever played with. henry hasnt called lampard a "complete player".

I'd be pretty confident Lampard has scored more goals in the last 3 seasons than Scholes has played games and he certainly scores more goals from open play.Gerrard is hardly an intellectual powerhouse and TBH I would be amased if he praised Lamps .Also, what is a playermaker?

Deleted User wrote: »

Are u having a laugh? Have u ever sat down and watched the contribution he makes to the United style of play?


4 defeats this season...all minus Rooney.

So are you happy with the amount of goals he scores? Drogba is better physichally and a better finisher. they are prime attributes for a striker. He's also a much better diver and worth at least 3 penalties a season

Deleted User wrote: »

How is that a joke? Park is a great little squad player, full of energy. Kalou is about the same.= albeit with different qualities.

SWP/Malouda etc < Ronaldo

SWP and malouda are without doubt better than Park, your picking and choosing your comparisons to suit you're argument and seeing as Park has barely played this season form kind of goes out the window with this one it comes down to skill and physichal abilities and Park cant touch them (doo doo do doo)

Deleted User wrote: »

How is it unfair? Anelka is a striker, Tevez is a number 10 (32:D), so like i said its difficult to compare the strikers anyway cos they operate differently. Tevez has been great and hes only 23.

I meant it's unfiar to call them equal. Anelka has scored more this season playing in a shocking team (no, not Chelsea), same as last season. He is suited to the english game and considering the impact Tevez had on West Ham last season it could be argued that Anelka is even slightly better for team spirit which says alot.
[/QUOTE]

Deleted User wrote: »

Hargreaves is a better player. Age is not the only factor to consider.

By what reasoning, you don't strike me as a Bundesliga fan and Hargreaves has been a passenger this season. he had a big injury a while back and he hasn't proved he has overcome it the same player. Also, age was the only factor that you gave for calling him equal with Makelele and then you criticize me for asking you why you didn't consider it with Mikel?

Deleted User wrote: »

Defensive record............ Watch Rio more. That is all.

He has been much better this season than usual but over the past three there's no question who has been better, Terry

Deleted User wrote: »

U can only call Juve "us" or Chelsea "us" not both, unless u have learned the art of juxtaposition. This in only acceptable if Roman buys Juve tbh:pac::pac:
.

I followed Vialli as a kid, when he moved I did to,don't see a problem TBH

Deleted User wrote: »

So are Park, Saha (I know, when fit), Nani, Anderson, Pique, Foster, Hargreaves

Nani is a starter and not back up, Pique is unproven in england as is Anderson and Hargreaves, Saha is never fit and TBH I don't rate Park highly. Foster and Kuzcack are slightly better than Hilario but what's the point of only beating Chelsea's depth in one position if VDS play every game

Nalz

Bubs101 wrote: »

beating Chelsea's depth in one position if VDS play every game

Foster 1 game, T K max 15 games, afaicr

Bubs101

Trilla wrote: »

Foster 1 game, T K max 15 games, afaicr

But how many premiership games?

ntlbell

cheesedude wrote: »

I can't take this thread seriously at all...I lost it after i read that Beckham was never great....headcases!

being exceptionally good at one a small part of the game doesn't make you great.

Is that hard for you to understand?

Or did you like him for his good looks and girly voice?

iregk

The amount of utter crap spoken in this thread is unreal. I'd rather have nobody than Neville. Beckham is utterly usless. Scholes is pants because he can't takle. Lampard is woeful as is Carvalho. Giggs has always been rubbish.

Can we have a bit of reality here with the posts please.

Nalz

TK Max and Foster 9 in total. 1/4 of the season. Not much really.

iregk wrote: »

The amount of utter crap spoken in this thread is unreal. I'd rather have nobody than Neville. Beckham is utterly usless. Scholes is pants because he can't takle. Lampard is woeful as is Carvalho. Giggs has always been rubbish.

Can we have a bit of reality here with the posts please.

Well said. I dont think anyone said Lampard and Carvalho was woeful did they? Apols if they did cas Im not goin routin through the thread. But your right on all counts.

Bubs101

Inter's team isn't to shabby either. There keepers are crap but once you get past that they have a great defence. Chivu would waltz into both of the teams, Maicon has been phenomenal since he burst on the scene, Zanetti is certainly the best right back that the 3 teams have and Materazzi scores at least 7 goals a season and is a quality defender.

The midfield isn't too shabby. Estebancambiass could make the case for Cambiasso, Viera is still a quality player, Stankovic is fantastic. Figo and Solari are a bit meh.

Up front they are great. Despite choking in the CL, Ibra is an amazing forward and for me, the best of the bunch while Crespo is still has the quality he used to, Cruz had been great this season and Suazo offers a bit of pace. Also have great teamwork and are well marshalled. If only they didn't choke all the time in the CL