Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

ntlbell

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.

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!

Orly?

Winning the CL doesn't mean you're the best team in europe.

In most cases you were a decent side with the most "luck" in europe.

That includes uniteds treble year, they were far far from the best team in europe and as for liverpool being the best when they beat milan

please, for the love of god, cop on to yourself lad.

United are the best team in England by far and Liverpool are the 4th best team.

It's practically impossible to pick the best team in europe bar on maybe some stats, but the CL doesn't decide it as much the fa cup doesn't decide in in england.

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

Orly?

Winning the CL doesn't mean you're the best team in europe.

In most cases you were a decent side with the most "luck" in europe.

That includes uniteds treble year, they were far far from the best team in europe and as for liverpool being the best when they beat milan

please, for the love of god, cop on to yourself lad.

United are the best team in England by far and Liverpool are the 4th best team.

It's practically impossible to pick the best team in europe bar on maybe some stats, but the CL doesn't decide it as much the fa cup doesn't decide in in england.

Treble year - who the hell was better then us in europe? Bearing in mind we got past Barcelona, Juventus and Inter Milan to get to the final, and had already proven more then a match for Bayern in the goup stage - two terrible non-calls from the ref/linesman in the same move for Elber's goal in Munich. We got lucky in the final, but who the hell was far far far better?

ntlbell

Tauren wrote: »

Treble year - who the hell was better then us in europe? Bearing in mind we got past Barcelona, Juventus and Inter Milan to get to the final, and had already proven more then a match for Bayern in the goup stage - two terrible non-calls from the ref/linesman in the same move for Elber's goal in Munich. We got lucky in the final, but who the hell was far far far better?

Look I'm not going to start swaying my manq willy.

You're talking about matches in the CL.

I'm talking about the whole year/season

The year of 99 the untied team was damn average.

The team that beat bayern was lucky and fairly average.

Real,Milan,bayern,juve position for position were all far better teams.

We were lucky to win the fa cup, we needed plenty of it for the league and were very lucky to win the CL

It was a great year, one I'll never forget but you have to be honest about it nearly every united team since then has been better and has done nothing in Europe really.

Nalz

ntlbell wrote: »

The team that beat bayern was lucky and fairly average.

Munich were very very very lucky the other two times United played them. Elber equalizer in the last minute, shocking goal to conceed in Munich, 1-1 in OT when United dominated the game. Fairly average yeah sure! Thats an awful post. Position for position? Best keeper and midfield partnership in Europe in 99, which i might add they were without in the final. Stam was a rock, and United were undefeated in both CL and FA cup that season. Not too many teams can say that.

PHB

Real, Milan, Baeryn and Juve position for position were better? Ok, even if that were true, teams decide football matches, nor individuals. Personally I think Liverpool have a better man for man ratio than say Arsenal, Arsenal however are a far superior team.
You want to know how we know this? Because United beat Juve on the way to the final, Bayern beat the others (some by proxy), and the reason United were **** in the final was because Scholes and Keane were out!!!
We needed luck, no doubt about it, you need luck, but to suggest United weren't the best team in Europe the year they won the treble is just silly.

Good teams can win one trophy without being the best team. But to win all 3 major, shows them to be a great team.

Anyway, I think the question you gotta ask yourself, is there a position any other team would prefer to be in rather than Uniteds? Top of the league, by 5 points, 2 away goals going into the quarters, is a better position than all the other teams left in the CL. The only question is whether or not they can capitalise on it.

Nonetheless, even if we don't, and we win nothing this year, next year we'll be even better. Why? Because what people forget is that while Arsenals young guns are doing great, Uniteds current team is 2 years away from peaking!! Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Anderson, Nani, Evra, Vidic, are not yet at the top of their games. Indeed the only first choice players at the top of their games are Ferdinand and Scholes, (Giggs is almost at the bottom of his game at this stage :P)

ntlbell

PHB wrote: »

We needed luck, no doubt about it, you need luck, but to suggest United weren't the best team in Europe the year they won the treble is just silly.

Ok, so if most of that team were "youngsters" who hadn't came near their peak.

How do you explain them not winning it again?

they got "unlucky" for 8 years solid?

the whole thing is a stupid argument

man citeh beat us home and away this year so they're the best team in england?

we didn't play all the best teams in 99 and i'm sure bayern also had a bit of luck on the way

so just because you beat the team that beat the others doesn't make you the best team

Which would lead to Liverpool were a better side than milan?

REALLY?

come off it.

Nalz

ntlbell wrote: »

we didn't play all the best teams in 99

maybe not, I'm sure thats impossible sure! But what we did do is play

BARCELONA X 2
BRONBY x 2
BAYERN MUNICH X 3
INTER MILAN X 2
JUVENTUS X 2

undefeated in all, not bad gotta say

PHB

How do you explain them not winning it again?

They didn't get some luck, and Fergie got tactics wrong. One great example is the year that Porto won it, when Scholes goal was disallowed for no good reason.
Also I never said that the team were youngsters who hasn't reached their peak, indeed lots of them weren't, and lots were sold on, and lots people quickly forget about.
Teams go in cycles, and that was the top of that teams cycles.

ntlbell, you seem to be making an argument that unless every other team plays every other team, then you can't be the best team in Europe. If thats the case, no team will ever be called the best team in Europe. Which I'm fine with, but in that case, all you have to go on is the trophies won and subjective evaluations.

If a team wins the CL, it doesn't mean they are the best team in Europe. We'll never know for sure, because its all subjective. Woohoo, go relativism!
But when a team goes unbeaten in the CL and FA Cup, win the league, win the FA Cup, and win the CL (without their two best players) I'm going to say that they were the best team in Europe.

ntlbell

PHB wrote: »

ntlbell, you seem to be making an argument that unless every other team plays every other team, then you can't be the best team in Europe. If thats the case, no team will ever be called the best team in Europe. Which I'm fine with, but in that case, all you have to go on is the trophies won and subjective evaluations.

If a team wins the CL, it doesn't mean they are the best team in Europe. We'll never know for sure, because its all subjective. Woohoo, go relativism!
But when a team goes unbeaten in the CL and FA Cup, win the league, win the FA Cup, and win the CL (without their two best players) I'm going to say that they were the best team in Europe.

It's all starting to get a bit juvenile now. we can't prove it so you'll just say they were and i'll go ok.

Fair enough.

smemon

ntlbell wrote: »

Ok, so if most of that team were "youngsters" who hadn't came near their peak.

How do you explain them not winning it again?

they got "unlucky" for 8 years solid?

the whole thing is a stupid argument

I can't believe this is a Man Utd fan posting anti Man U material

So despite winning a treble in 99, you believe there were better sides about and that the utd side was average at best...

You don't fluke 3 major trophies in the one year. Whatever about winning a CL or an FA Cup, winning all 3 together can't be done by 'average' sides.

Utd also won the league in 2000 and 2001, plus they were always regulars in the CL knock out stages.

To suggest a side including Schmeichel, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Irwin, Beckham, Stam (all on peak from) was average, is insane.

Yorke and Cole on peak form were also not exactly 'average'.

If some of those players and that 99 side cannot go down as 'great' then there is no such thing as 'great'.

ntlbell

smemon wrote: »

I can't believe this is a Man Utd fan posting anti Man U material

To suggest a side including Schmeichel, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Irwin, Beckham, Stam (all on peak from) was average, is insane.

Yorke and Cole on peak form were also not exactly 'average'.

If some of those players and that 99 side cannot go down as 'great' then there is no such thing as 'great'.

Anti Man utd material?? lolz

Beckham was never "great" for a start.

4 decent players does not a team make.

The only player who should go down as a "great" is Roy.

herbieflowers

They all were in-form at the same time, which resulted in them performing and winning as they did. Ie as a team, with some outstanding individuals, they cohered like no other team in Europe at that time. Judging them from now, from today's game, is futile - at the time they were the best side in Europe.

And Beckham may not have been great - seems to be a widespread opinion drawn from his gradual decline in effectiveness over the last few seasons - but back then he was potent. Best deliverer of a ball in the world and scored a hatful of free-kicks. Added to that the Yorke-Cole partnership was undoubtedly the best in Europe at the time, they may not have been the greatest of player individually but their telepathic understanding was devastating.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

Anti Man utd material?? lolz

Beckham was never "great" for a start.

4 decent players does not a team make.

The only player who should go down as a "great" is Roy.

So u think that Schmeichel, prime Scholes, prime Giggs werent "great" players? Well done. Schmeichel was hugely responsible for Denmark, let me repeat that DENMARK, winning the Euro 92, he did something not a lot of people do and that is shut down van Basten in one on one situations AND save a van Basten penalty (a real rarity)

Giggs destroyed defences for years and his current form shouldnt stop you from rememberin that hes one of the best wingers ever to play the game.

Scholes, well Scholess once had this said about him, "if he looked like David Beckham he's be worth 60 million". Scholes was the master of timing a late run into the box and scored countless crucial golas doing this. Hes a superbly talented passer with an unbeievable football brain. Henry called him a "complete player". Steven gerrard said about him that he's the best player he ever played with. I think that sums up the stupidity of your post.

And 4 decent players? Lets see, I just named 3 great players, add in Keane, thats 4 great players, then if u want to talk decent, arguably great in some cases, u have Yorke/Cole (who the sum of their parts = great), Solksjaer who IMO is great but because he was a super sub rather than a regular starter he'd never be regarded as great except by United fans, Beckham, Sheringham, Irwin, Stam, Gary Neville etc etc.


Need I go on? I think the fact that they won a treble and nobody had done it before or since says a lot. Plus theyre one of the very few teams in the history of the CHAMPIONS LEAGUE who won it without losing a game. they also won the FA Cup beating Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. What more was it u needed from them?

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

So u think that Schmeichel, prime Scholes, prime Giggs werent "great" players? Well done. Schmeichel was hugely responsible for Denmark, let me repeat that DENMARK.

Giggs destroyed defences for years and his current form shouldnt stop you from rememberin that hes one of the best wingers ever to play the game.

Scholes, well Scholess once had this said about him, "if he looked like David Beckham he's be worth 60 million". Scholes was the master of timing a late run into the box and scored countless crucial golas doing this. Hes a superbly talented passer with an unbeievable football brain. Henry called him a "complete player". Steven gerrard said about him that he's the best player he ever played with. I think that sums up the stupidity of your post.

And 4 decent players? Lets see, I just named 3 great players, add in Keane, thats 4 great players, then if u want to talk decent, arguably great in some cases, u have Yorke/Cole (who the sum of their parts = great), Solksjaer who IMO is great but because he was a super sub rather than a regular starter he'd never be regarded as great except by United fans, Beckham, Sheringham, Irwin, Stam, Gary Neville etc etc.


Need I go on? I think the fact that they won a treble and nobody had done it before or since says a lot. Plus theyre one of the very few teams in the history of the CHAMPIONS LEAGUE who won it without losing a game. they also won the FA Cup beating Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. What more was it u needed from them?

there's a HUGE difference between a great player and a "great"

Giggs couldn't cross a ball for his life after beating half a team his end product the majority of the time was dreadful.

Schole's couldn't tackle defending with him we may aswell play with 10 men.

Beckham, in his hay day couldn't dribble a ball, couldn't go by a player couldn't defend, couldn't tackle. (this does not = great)

Solksjaer ? super sub? so he should go down as a "great" ? no he'll be a legend, but he's far far from a great.

Gary has always been average and always will be. good servant to the club != great

You can go on all you like but it's not going to change the reality of it.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

there's a HUGE difference between a great player and a "great"

Giggs couldn't cross a ball for his life after beating half a team his end product the majority of the time was dreadful.

Schole's couldn't tackle defending with him we may aswell play with 10 men.

Beckham, in his hay day couldn't dribble a ball, couldn't go by a player couldn't defend, couldn't tackle. (this does not = great)

Solksjaer ? super sub? so he should go down as a "great" ? no he'll be a legend, but he's far far from a great.

Gary has always been average and always will be. good servant to the club != great

You can go on all you like but it's not going to change the reality of it.

Thats bull. the amount of goals Untied got from Schmeichel throwing the ball halfway down to giggs and Giggs destroying the defence before setting someone up for an easy finish was outrageous.

Scholes wasnt a great tackler but you are exaggerating how bad he was/is. He was always good for a few late tackles a game but to liken him to Ronaldo as defensively useless again shows that u dont know what you're talkin about.

Never called Beckham a great, but he was a very very good player. You dont get 100 caps for England and play for Madrid if you're average, and yes I know Madrid wanted him equally for his marketability but he wouldnt have been marketable if he was ****. Possibly the best player ever from a dead ball, not something any average player can claim.

Where did i claim Olé to be a great? He was a great substitute and his ability to see the holes in opposition defences and then come on and exploit them was second to none.

Neville was not average, he has alwasy been very very solid.





U originally said "4 decent players does not a team make"


Now I can name 4 great players: Schmeichel, Keane, Scholes and Giggs


Numerous "decent" players: Sheringham, Cole/Yorke, Beckham, Olé, Neville, Irwin etc etc


R u trying to say that those players were ****? Dont give up the day job.

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

there's a HUGE difference between a great player and a "great"

Giggs couldn't cross a ball for his life after beating half a team his end product the majority of the time was dreadful.

Schole's couldn't tackle defending with him we may aswell play with 10 men.

Beckham, in his hay day couldn't dribble a ball, couldn't go by a player couldn't defend, couldn't tackle. (this does not = great)

Solksjaer ? super sub? so he should go down as a "great" ? no he'll be a legend, but he's far far from a great.

Gary has always been average and always will be. good servant to the club != great

You can go on all you like but it's not going to change the reality of it.

Zidane couldn't takle either - he can't have been a great so.

Beating a player is a mark of greatness, pitty being one of the best passers of the ball around and easily one o the best crossers in the world at the time mean nothing - who needs to beat a man when you can cross like Becks did? 27 assists in one season is a brilliant record. In 99, Beckham was AMAZING - a truly great player that year.

Agree on Giggs - but that season he was great.

In 99, the United midfield were the best midfield in the world, bar none - that 4 were awesome.

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.

Tauren

Tauren wrote: »

Zidane couldn't takle either - he can't have been a great so.

Beating a player is a mark of greatness, pitty being one of the best passers of the ball around and easily one o the best crossers in the world at the time mean nothing - who needs to beat a man when you can cross like Becks did? 27 assists in one season is a brilliant record. In 99, Beckham was AMAZING - a truly great player that year.

Agree on Giggs - but that season he was great.

In 99, the United midfield were the best midfield in the world, bar none - that 4 were awesome.

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 agree about Beckham, forgot about all the assists, hence why Ruud loved the guy.


I worry about short memory syndrome when it comes to Giggs. he was AWESOME in his prime. His current **** performances seem to be makin people forget that.

Id have taken nobody over Neville tbh.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

T
Scholes wasnt a great tackler but you are exaggerating how bad he was/is. He was always good for a few late tackles a game but to liken him to Ronaldo as defensively useless again shows that u dont know what you're talkin about.

U originally said "4 decent players does not a team make"


Now I can name 4 great players: Schmeichel, Keane, Scholes and Giggs


Numerous "decent" players: Sheringham, Cole/Yorke, Beckham, Olé, Neville, Irwin etc etc


R u trying to say that those players were ****? Dont give up the day job.

Defesnivley Scholes and ronaldo have totally different jobs.

Apprently ronaldo has no responsibilities and is not asked to go back

Scholes in where he plays MUST defend well as it's a very dangerous area of the field you have NO cover.

I didn't say there was only 4 someone named 5 i removed one which left 4 from the ones they named.

A few "decent" players doesn't make you the best team in europe.

Almost every year since 99 we have had a stronger team than we did in 99 and still haven't won the cl league when a few average team's have and I INCULDE LIVERPOOL if your coming 4th and 20+ points behind the league leaders in your league your average in my book.

Winning the CL's doesn't make you the best in Europe.

Winning the treble is a huge feat and no team may ever do it again.

That alone shows how much luck was involved as much as does how "great" the 99 side was.

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

ntlbell

Tauren wrote: »

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

If you take time to read the posts I never said anything about 4/5 players

someone else did and i commented on them 4 nothing else.

LegacyUser

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

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

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?

Which one part - the workrate, the crossing, the passing, dead ball? The only thing that let him down in 99 was the ability to dribble pass the defender, but he was so damned great at crossing he rarely needed to. Also, how the hell can you define passing/crossing (the ability to create chances - 27 goals in 98/99 from Beckham assists) as a SMALL PART of a midfielders game?

Petr Cech can't beat a man, isn't great at passing or shooting, tackling is not great, workrate is low.... Sure he is good at saving shots but that is only ONE thing, is that a small part of the game too (if creating goalscoring chances is a small part...)

ntlbell

Tauren wrote: »

Which one part - the workrate, the crossing, the passing, dead ball? The only thing that let him down in 99 was the ability to dribble pass the defender, but he was so damned great at crossing he rarely needed to. Also, how the hell can you define passing/crossing (the ability to create chances - 27 goals in 98/99 from Beckham assists) as a SMALL PART of a midfielders game?

Petr Cech can't beat a man, isn't great at passing or shooting, tackling is not great, workrate is low.... Sure he is good at saving shots but that is only ONE thing, is that a small part of the game too (if creating goalscoring chances is a small part...)

what work rate? chasing back when tries to beat his man knowing full well he's awful at trying to go past any decent defender and kicking fresh air?

Making up for your lack of ability like that awful liverpool defender with "great work rate" having to do more to make up for your lack of skills is not work rate.

Look we can go around and around with this argument for ever.

You liked him

Me and huge amount of manchester don't.

Football is great isn't it.

Nalz

can I just say................. :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

smemon wrote: »

I can't believe this is a Man Utd fan posting anti Man U material

This is the most awesome part of this thread.

STICK TO THE PARTY LINE - DON'T QUESTION THE STATUS QUO.

I think all Utd fans should burn NTL at the stake!

ntlbell

Trilla wrote: »

can I just say................. :rolleyes:

Can I just add this. God lol

Mr Alan

nah, he's getting enough little digs in at Liverpool to keep em happy

ntlbell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is the most awesome part of this thread.

STICK TO THE PARTY LINE - DON'T QUESTION THE STATUS QUO.

I think all Utd fans should burn NTL at the stake!

eek!

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

nah, he's getting enough little digs in at Liverpool to keep em happy

who moi?

LuckyLloyd

Mr Alan wrote: »

nah, he's getting enough little digs in at Liverpool to keep em happy

well NTL is a wise aulfella - understands the sensitive politics involved. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

LegacyUser

ntlbell wrote: »

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?

Oh I know that...but what's your footballing CV like? Have you played for Manchester United as a key player for years? Have you moved to the biggest club in the i.e. Real Madrid and played there successfully? No? Didn't think so...

So instead of being jealous of his looks and what he might do to your bird if he CHOSE to, would you mind focusing on reality a bit because as it stands, your looking ****ed in the head.

LuckyLloyd

cheesedude wrote: »

Oh I know that...but what's your footballing CV like? Have you played for Manchester United as a key player for years? Have you moved to the biggest club in the i.e. Real Madrid and played there successfully? No? Didn't think so...

So instead of being jealous of his looks and what he might do to your bird if he CHOSE to, would you mind focusing on reality a bit because as it stands, your looking ****ed in the head.

Yo, whats the beef man? The soccer forum would be a pretty empty place if playing football at premiership and international level became a pre requisite posting requirement. To use that angle as a means of arguing against his posts is ridiculous - and smacks of a high degree of academic immaturity.

LegacyUser

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yo, whats the beef man? The soccer forum would be a pretty empty place if playing football at premiership and international level became a pre requisite posting requirement. To use that angle as a means of arguing against his posts is ridiculous - and smacks of a high degree of academic immaturity.

My point was that the managers of the clubs i.e. Ferguson and Capello who managed Beckham are nothing short of genius in their chosen career path...that's my point and that is why it is relevant...because they both think he was a world class player....and he has the credentials too. Won tons of stuff, 100 caps for his country...and is now in the US making millions from his career as a footballer...

And their opinion is held a lot higher than NTL Bell who is saying that Beckham was not a great player...I think that is a crock of ****.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yo, whats the beef man? The soccer forum would be a pretty empty place if playing football at premiership and international level became a pre requisite posting requirement. To use that angle as a means of arguing against his posts is ridiculous - and smacks of a high degree of academic immaturity.

Its not that. Its the way Mr NTLBell is trying to ridicule Beckham. Its one thing to not rate him, but his posts stink of something more sinister, bordering on rabid jealousy.

ntlbell

cheesedude wrote: »

Oh I know that...but what's your footballing CV like? Have you played for Manchester United as a key player for years? Have you moved to the biggest club in the i.e. Real Madrid and played there successfully? No? Didn't think so...

So instead of being jealous of his looks and what he might do to your bird if he CHOSE to, would you mind focusing on reality a bit because as it stands, your looking ****ed in the head.

My CV is hot

Shamrock rovers up to under 13's methinks.

Under 11's IIRC played 20 won 20 conceaded 0 we was teh awsome.

I don't understand what it has to do with anything tho?

ntlbell

cheesedude wrote: »

My point was that the managers of the clubs i.e. Ferguson and Capello who managed Beckham are nothing short of genius in their chosen career path...that's my point and that is why it is relevant...because they both think he was a world class player....and he has the credentials too. Won tons of stuff, 100 caps for his country...and is now in the US making millions from his career as a footballer...

And their opinion is held a lot higher than NTL Bell who is saying that Beckham was not a great player...I think that is a crock of ****.

Well didn't the genuis Fergie give beckham a bang of a boot for being a moron and send him on his way?

You're right genuis.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not that. Its the way Mr NTLBell is trying to ridicule Beckham. Its one thing to not rate him, but his posts stink of something more sinister, bordering on rabid jealousy.

I see, and why would I be jealous of Gary? his rocking good looks?

Super star gf?

I'm too old to even feel jealously

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

Well didn't the genuis Fergie give beckham a bang of a boot for being a moron and send him on his way?

You're right genuis.

He was gotten rid of because of the bandwagon and baggage that his celebrity brought, nothing to do with his football abilities.

Seriously mate, just admit u have a probelm with Beckham himself and stop tryin to hide behind so called footballing reasons. The way u have described his inadequacies in football, while trying to blatantly make fun of the guy have shown this to me already tbh. U made fun of his voice etc etc, since when does that make u a rubbish footballer?

Im not saying he was a great, he was a very good player for me. But if we were to listen to u we'd believe that he was equivalent to Emile Heskey and only got to where he is based on what he looks like. Which, lets be honest, is bull****.

Bubs101

ntlbell wrote: »

Well didn't the genuis Fergie give beckham a bang of a boot for being a moron and send him on his way?

You're right genuis.

Because Fergie was to set in his ways to admit that Beckham could mix a succesful football career while courting the celeb limelight like he did.

Personally I think Beckham was a great player twice. Great for around 3 seasons at Man Utd and then fantastic in his last 6 months at Real after Fabio had insulted him for agreeing to play in LA and refused to play him again.

Great character

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

I see, and why would I be jealous of Gary? his rocking good looks?

Super star gf?

I'm too old to even feel jealously

I didnt realsie Beckhams first name was Gary.


I must know nothing :rolleyes:



Ah one is never too old too feel jealousy but sometimes one is clearly too old to make rational judgements on players abilities

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

I didnt realsie Beckhams first name was Gary.


I must know nothing :rolleyes:



Ur clearly too old to make ratiopnal judgements on payers too :P

I said gary as i also said he was average so i must be crazy jealous of him to by your thinking?

Beckham is hot, I would do him. but I wouldn't have him in a sunday league pub team.

he's too soft.

ntlbell

Bubs101 wrote: »

Because Fergie was to set in his ways to admit that Beckham could mix a succesful football career while courting the celeb limelight like he did.

Personally I think Beckham was a great player twice. Great for around 3 seasons at Man Utd and then fantastic in his last 6 months at Real after Fabio had insulted him for agreeing to play in LA and refused to play him again.

Great character

This doesn't make sense how can the best or one of the most successful mangers be stuck in his ways?

How can he be a genuis if he got such a simple thing like bechkham walzing around in his boxers on tv let him affect his judgment?

Something doesn't add up.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

I said gary as i also said he was average so i must be crazy jealous of him to by your thinking?

Beckham is hot, I would do him. but I wouldn't have him in a sunday league pub team.

he's too soft.

Well when u resort to making fun of the guys vopice in a debate over his footballing skills....

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

This doesn't make sense how can the best or one of the most successful mangers be stuck in his ways?

How can he be a genuis if he got such a simple thing like bechkham walzing around in his boxers on tv let him affect his judgment?

Something doesn't add up.

TOO-BIG-FOR-THE-TEAM

Nalz

LOOK


BECKHAM WAS GREAT FOR UNITED FOR 3 OR 4 SEASONS

SCORING AND CREATING ALOT OF GOALS

SURE HE'S MADE MONEY AND BROADCASTED HIS PRIVATE LIFE, AND THIS GETS ON SOME PPLS TITS (so does that sayin by the way) BUT FAIR PLAY TO HIM. WHATEVER FLOATS HIS BOAT. LETS DISCUSS HIS FOOTBALL. AFTER ALL, HE DOESNT GO AROUND KNOCKIN PPL ABOUT LIKE JOEY BARTON OR ANYTHIN LIKE THAT.

ALL THIS CANNOT BE DENIED AND IMO THAT MAKES HIM A VERY GOOD FOOTBALLER, A PART OF MANCHESTER UNITEDS HISTORY, AND A PLAYER THAT HAS CONTRIBUTED IMMENSELY TO HOW AND WHAT THEY ARE LIKE TODAY. A GREAT CLUB

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

He was gotten rid of because of the bandwagon and baggage that his celebrity brought, nothing to do with his football abilities.

Seriously mate, just admit u have a probelm with Beckham himself and stop tryin to hide behind so called footballing reasons. The way u have described his inadequacies in football, while trying to blatantly make fun of the guy have shown this to me already tbh. U made fun of his voice etc etc, since when does that make u a rubbish footballer?

Im not saying he was a great, he was a very good player for me. But if we were to listen to u we'd believe that he was equivalent to Emile Heskey and only got to where he is based on what he looks like. Which, lets be honest, is bull****.

So how is fergie a genuis if his judgment is clouded so easiliy?

His funny voice doesn't make him a bad footballer it just makes him funny.

What has heskey got to do with anything? different type of players.

both had big balls tho. just one was golden :rolleyes:

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

TOO-BIG-FOR-THE-TEAM

But but, he was such a good profesional how could he get too big for the team?

is this a flaw?

oh my..the truth starts to come out now..tell us more.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

Well when u resort to making fun of the guys vopice in a debate over his footballing skills....

I didn't say his voice made him a bad footballer i asked someone else was it his sexy voice they were attracted to

see the difference?

invincibleirish

I didnt bother to read the whole thread, but heres my 2 cents: Man Utd winnig the CL in 1999 was epic, it was a great footballing story, winning the treble methinks confirmed them as the best team in Europe that season.

I dont think winning the CL automatically makes you the best team in Europe (LFC 2005 being the control here)

But the style and manner in which Utd dominated in 1999 did.

Dwight Yorke is still a muppet though.

ntlbell

invincibleirish wrote: »

I didnt bother to read the whole thread, but heres my 2 cents: Man Utd winnig the CL in 1999 was epic, it was a great footballing story, winning the treble methinks confirmed them as the best team in Europe that season.

As i stated at the start, the night itself to this day remains one of the happiest and most memorable nights of my life and i don't think it will ever be matched again.

this is not in question.

Nalz

anyone got a key for this?

cm2000

I think Beckham was a great player and is still a good player. his ability to set up goals in his prime was second to none. a little reminder http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gig9p0kGA1o