Man Utd in 99 + Beckham is crap thread

invincibleirish

Beckham had lots of assists, anyone care to dig em up? he isnt C. Ronaldo and he isnt Giggs, he was Beckham, lethal from Free kicks and accurate in his crossing, sure the showbiz side of him did more then anything else to tarnish his football reputation, but he was a key part of the 1999 treble team, that cannot be disputed.

Unearthly

The hate Beckham bandwagon is so dull

He was a fantastic player and servent for Man Utd. Simple as that

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

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.

By the time he left United i didn't like him - his form seriously dipped massively after 99, and by the time he left he was a mere shadow of who he had been in a United shirt. However, in 99, he was awesome.

Also, I note how you didn't pick up on the dead ball/passing/crossing. Man, creativity is SSSSSSSOOOOOOOOO over-rated in a midfielder - they simply can't be great if they can't dribble. Poor Fabregas, doomed to be average - all he has is wonderful vision and passing, his dribbling isn't up to scratch at all, Arsenal should just sell him now. Xavi too - forget about wonderful passing, control and movement - his dribbling isn't brilliant so forget him.

Not liking someone is very different to ignoring their ability. I freaking hate Lampard, Gerrard, Ashley Cole and many others - i can still see they have great footballing qualities.

Mad_Max

cm2000 wrote: »

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

That vid was brilliant. Some of his crosses were so damn good that a child could have put them away. AND did anyone see him skinning a barca defender at the start.. who said he never went by a player

Seriosuly though saying he wasn't a good player is silly imo. You can have a pop at him for certain parts of his game (and not his lifestyle) but what he was good at he was GREAT at.

Pepe LeFrits

Has there been another player whose reputation in the public consciousness has wavered as much as Beckham's? Rollercoaster from start to finish.

I think his reputation is leveling out at an accurate level now. He was underrated for quite a while, after a period of being overrated.

Terrific player in his pomp, and a terrific person too, imo.

dc69

i think beckham is abused by alot of people for no reason,I was delighted when he got his 100th cap and im a Liverpool fan!

Mad_Max

find any other player who has at least 7 and a half minutes (im sure theres more) of unbelievable free kicks like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-r3h5GP_wSA&feature=related
and i'd be pretty sure that they'd be considered great.

Mitch Connor

Mad_Max wrote: »

find any other player who has at least 7 and a half minutes (im sure theres more) of unbelievable free kicks like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-r3h5GP_wSA&feature=related
and i'd be pretty sure that they'd be considered great.

but he wasn't a great dribbler - that is apparently the mark of a great player.

PHB

He was a fine dribbler, it's just he was slow as ****.

smemon

ntlbell, name a great side in your lifetime, in your opinion...

Unearthly

Tauren wrote: »

but he wasn't a great dribbler - that is apparently the mark of a great player.

ahh but Ronaldo isn't a great player as he doesn't do it in big games

We need a player who is Beckham and Ronaldo combined!

deisedevil

I can't stand Gary Neville as a person but equally I can't stand it when he's dismissed as an average player. He's the most succesful Right Back in the history of the premiership and in 2005 and 2007 he wasn in the PFA Team of the year and he is always the first choice right back for England.
It's just another example of a player who isn't liked by many not getting the credit he deserves. (bit like Ronaldo)

kinaldo

ntlbell wrote: »

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

I really dislike Man Utd, and much more so back in 99, but...

Real were sh1te that year having sacked Jupp Heynckes after winning the CL in 98. Barca romped the league in 99 but apart from two classic draws with Man Utd were sh1te in Europe.

Juve were a team on the slide, Del Piero had been found out by then, Di Livio, Conte, Peruzzi etc were all getting on and everyone hated Inzaghi.

Bayern were overly reliant on their aging stars, Lizarazu, Scholl, Effenberg, Hassler and Mathaus. Elber was never a world beater. They failed to beat Man Utd in 3 attempts. Had Keane and Scholes played the final it's unlikely they would have come so close to winning it.

Milan weren't even in the CL that year. They won the league for the first time since 96 after two disasterous seasons but were widely considered to be very lucky that year.

I can't think of anyone better than Man Utd that year. They scored more goals, won more games, and lost less games than any other team. Arsenal were almost as good but didn't actually win anything.

LuckyCharms

I would love to know where some of ye find this stupid reasoning behind some of the replies.
United had the best team in 99 withoutdoubt, we beat the best to become the best.

This thing about beckham is bordering on the ridiculous side also, in his prime at united he was a great player,was lethal from free kicks and his crossing was second to none, Fergie got rid of him when he was beginning to lose his edge just like he did with RVN,keane etc.The term world class seems to get thrown around alot these days and beckham no matter how great he was ,never quite reached the heights to be called world class.Beckham came, he saw, he conquered then he got flogged to spain when he was past it,now he is a global spokesman for "soccer" in the states.No matter what anyone says beckham was a great player in his time and he is a great spokeman for the game in America.


The only person who wasn't sold for those reasons was stam who i think even fergie regrets selling and i know stam regrets opening his trap in his autobiograpy.

On the subject of Gary Neville,well he has been the best right back in the premiership for many a year ,that says all you need to know about his ability.

themont85

Much what I would have said is already in the thread, but this is why I think Man Utd were great that year and the best team. We beat Juve, Inter, and got passed a group with Barca and Bayern. What more do you want? Also nobody appart from Utd have ever done the Treble(not the crappy one 'pool one:D) in english football history. I'd also sight specifically our win in Turin that year, backs against the wall they delivered and didn't rely on a home crowd to get us through. Sign of a great side to me and the best in europe that year.

Thanx 4 The Fish

LuckyCharms wrote: »

United had the best team in 99 withoutdoubt, we beat the best to become the best.

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

Peyton Manning

No, but we did win the Intercontinental Cup that year.

Nalz

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They were good but not the best in the world.

who were and why T4TF?

Xavi6

ntlbell wrote: »

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

I wish to subscribe to youe newsletter.

ntlbell wrote: »

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

Subscription cancelled.

Sqaull20

Luck!!!!!!

Its all you ever hear..

liverpool were so lucky to win the champions league Milan all over them, Italy were so lucky to win the world cup Australia robbed, Arsenal should have won wednesday night, Bendtner blocked shot on line, Hleb peno etc...

No such thing as Luck ffs

You are either good enough or your not..

Muff_Daddy

I've only read the first page....so let me see if I have this. We have a United fan, ntlbell, who is argueing that the 99' side was average, and that they fluked the treble, no less? Oh and Peter feckin' Schmeichel is only 'decent' according to him?

Madness.

LegacyUser

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

This is ****ing absurd...ban yourself.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Why is it absurd, surely this point (based on little things like fact which you seem to like to ignore when you are wrong) is a valid one in a thread asking about whether united were the best in the world in 1999.

ROCKMAN

As the saying goes the league table doesn't lie.
With that it mind

If the champion's league was put in league format.

AFTER THE FINAL IT READS

.... ......... Played..... Goals ...... PTS
Man Utd ..... 13 ....... + 14 ........ 25
BAYERN .... . 13 ........ + 14 ........ 25

but if it was a league no final (playoff )

.... ... ............ Played...... Goals ...... PTS
BAYERN ............. 12 ..... +14 ...... 25
MAN UTD ............. 12 ..... +13 ..... 22

hmmm interesting
But we where alot better than average

LegacyUser

Trilla wrote: »

who were and why T4TF?

I want to know this too...

TFTF can you please answer the question?

So on your logic, Necaxa or Vasco De Gama were the best team in the world then...what a crock of ****.

Thanx 4 The Fish

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

Peyton Manning

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

To be fair, only 1 team in that tournament had won their continents championship (i.e. Champions League equivalent) and that was Man Utd.

The winner of the Copa Libertadores was Palmeiras. They werent in that competition. However, they were in the Intercontinental Cup, and we beat them in the final.

LegacyUser

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They won the competition to crown them so, a comp that Man United entered and lost.

Can you see where this is going ?

Are you sure winning the world club championship factually states that the winner is the best club in the world?

Thanx 4 The Fish

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

Nalz

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

The thing about this post is you know its a load of bull yourself.

Dont be at yourself

I cant believe the slating Beckham gets, particularly from Man Utd fans. He was/is world-class, of that there is no doubt to me. He couldn't beat a man, and he didn't have pace, but his other attributes more than made up for that. His vision and his passing made his lack of pace and dribbling technique redundant. Add in his crossing, free-kicks, his work-rate and his professionalism and it's case-closed.

It perplexes me that Beckham is slated by a large proportion of football fans for being slow and one-geared, while extolling the virtues of players like Riquelme. He's just a poor-man's Beckham if you ask me!

iregk

Well I think a lot of the stick Beckham gets is largely due to himself and the tabloid media in england. Most here watch their footie on sky and watching sky sports news which is a moving version of the sun. They have constantly told us how amazing beckham is for the past decade and so peoples opinion of him are hugely divided.

Take the free kick against Greece. Everytime we hear about it they tell us how much of a god he is and how he was the best player in the world because of that free kick etc... They will never make any mention at the fact that it was his 8th free kick from that range to actually shoot from. Now it was a cracker but lets not ignore facts, if a player like him has that many shots he is bound to score with at least one.

In my opinion Beckham is possibly the most over rated player to ever play the game. Thats not to say he is a bad player, i happen to think he was a very good player when used correctly but he certainly wasn't the Michel Platini the english media tried to convince us he was. The other part of the reason is him. People hate to see footballers more concerned about their image and public opinion than their preformances on the pitch and most will conceed that at the end of his united spell he had become more a media man than a footballer.

When stories of his madrid contract started to come out and him demanding a stylist in teh dressing room, pre match and at half time peoples opinions dropped even further. We know he left Madrid and pretty much gave up on his career for a big final pay day in the Us. We have seen now that he was more concerned about money and publicity/branding than he ever was about football.

He couldn't tackle, couldn't beat a man and couldn't kick with his left foot but then again. Maradonna couldn't play with this bad foot nor tackle! Does that make him a bad player? No of course not. Its about using your players strenghts to the good of your team. Beckham has a sublime range of passing, crossing and he could pull strings when he wanted to. United used that the best they could and so did Madrid. For them he was brilliant.

Mitch Connor

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Surely if they were the best team in the world in 99 they would have won the "World Club Championships", ya know the competition that they failed to beat those monsters of world football Necaxa, or Vasco de Gama.

They were good but not the best in the world.

Your thesis is BLOWN APART by the FACT the WCC was in 2000, not 99!

Game, set and match.

Xavi6

Tauren wrote: »

Your thesis is BLAWN APART by the FACT the WCC was in 2000, not 99!

Game, set and match.

Ah come on. It was played in January 2000 but was the competition for the 1999 season.

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ah come on. It was played in January 2000 but was the competition for the 1999 season.

Nope, i'm keeping my pedantically won point.:D

The thread is about United in 99. The WCC was not in 99. In the 98/99 season, United were the best around and we got what we deserved come May. In 2000 onwards we slipped backwards, but in 99 there was no one better than us.

iregk

Tauren wrote: »

The thread is about United in 99. The WCC was not in 99. In the 98/99 season, United were the best around and we got what we deserved come May. In 2000 onwards we slipped backwards, but in 99 there was no one better than us.

Would you stop. The WCC was actually supposed to be in summer of 99 and be a result of the 98/99 season but all clubs couldn't commit so they moved it to Jan 00. On that basis it is a 98/99 season tournament.

As soon as United came up against some good talent they were torn apart. I remember watching United being caught like a rabbit in the headlights getting a 3-1 kicking by Vasco. United's goal coming in the 82" minute after Vasco had taken off the big names. Still you went on to beat the heavy weights of world football Melbourne to claim your place as the worlds best.

I'm sure I'm also not alone here in thinking Bayern were a better team in the final and got a sucker punch.

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote: »

Would you stop. The WCC was actually supposed to be in summer of 99 and be a result of the 98/99 season but all clubs couldn't commit so they moved it to Jan 00. On that basis it is a 98/99 season tournament.

As soon as United came up against some good talent they were torn apart. I remember watching United being caught like a rabbit in the headlights getting a 3-1 kicking by Vasco. United's goal coming in the 82" minute after Vasco had taken off the big names. Still you went on to beat the heavy weights of world football Melbourne to claim your place as the worlds best.

I'm sure I'm also not alone here in thinking Bayern were a better team in the final and got a sucker punch.

So, Barcelona, Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich are all crap. Would YOU stop. As for Bayern being the better team in the final - we were the better side in both home and away games in the group stages and bayern didn't deserve the draws they got in either game, so on 2 out of the 3 occasions we met them that year, we were the better side, and didn't lose to them once.

Also, it doesn't matter a single bit when the comp was SUPPOSED to be played, it wasn't in 99.

smemon

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

I think the clue is in the title. And no trophy/competition states that the winner is the best in the world/country/region/township/village/estate.

I'd agree with this to an extent.

i.e. if you win a champions league and no domestic trophies, you can't be regarded as the best side in england or domestically and therefore is questionable whether you're the best in europe if you can't win your own league..

But win the two major domestic trophies, plus a champions league and you can't deny Utd were the most consistent and powerful side out there in 99 certainly in europe, and arguably in the world.

Europe is generally regarded as the home of football and with the organisation, structure, finance etc.. that's why you see the ronaldinho's, cafu's, carlos', maradona's etc... set up shop here. If these player's domestic leagues are so great, why then do they come over here?

It's nonsense to argue the brazilian league or any other league outside of europe is the best in the world when it's on a smaller stage and doesn't contain their star players.

Europe is where the world's elite play and as there is no proper world club cup, and never will be (due to hectic schedules and international cups), you can only base a side on their performance in their own league and in europe.

iregk

smemon wrote: »

If these player's domestic leagues are so great, why then do they come over here?

Simple. Money. The south american leagues are class, the level of play is top notch as is the entertainment. The problem is it just doesn't have the money. So top players such as Kaka, Ronaldinho see that they can earn 100k a week in Europe why not rather than earn 20k a week?

Tauren wrote:

So, Barcelona, Juventus, Inter Milan and Bayern Munich are all crap.
Also, it doesn't matter a single bit when the comp was SUPPOSED to be played, it wasn't in 99.

I never said a word about Barca, Juve or Inter in any of my posts. I simply mentioned Bayern. It doesn't matter what you do in the group stage its the end game that counts. In the final Bayern were a better team and deserved it.

As for your 00 -v- 99 argument your just being childish now. The comp was for the 98/99 season and you got taken apart. Face it. So the comp was on the 12th of may against a full moon tide with venus aligned with saturn in 1999 there fore it doesn't count a bit. Please keep posting, your giving me a great laugh.

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote: »

Simple. Money. The south american leagues are class, the level of play is top notch as is the entertainment. The problem is it just doesn't have the money. So top players such as Kaka, Ronaldinho see that they can earn 100k a week in Europe why not rather than earn 20k a week?



I never said a word about Barca, Juve or Inter in any of my posts. I simply mentioned Bayern. It doesn't matter what you do in the group stage its the end game that counts. In the final Bayern were a better team and deserved it.

As for your 00 -v- 99 argument your just being childish now. The comp was for the 98/99 season and you got taken apart. Face it. So the comp was on the 12th of may against a full moon tide with venus aligned with saturn in 1999 there fore it doesn't count a bit. Please keep posting, your giving me a great laugh.

No, you said as soon as united came up agaisnt a talented side (Vasco) we were found out. So the implication is Barca, Inter, Juve were not talented.

As for your 'only the final matters', will that is just picking and chosing, isn't it. So United were the better side against Bayern in Munich, and at Old Trafford, but that doesn't count cause Bayern were better in Barcelona where United were without their central midfield. Come off it - you are being childish yourself, and your bull is giving me a good laugh too.

As for your comments regarding Vasco in general (saying they are better than United cause they beat us in the WCC. Going by the same logic - Barnsley are a better side than both Chelsea and Liverpool. Beat both of them after all.

astrofool

I find it funny that people are bigging up the WCC, oh ye of short memories.

Of course, the fact that Utd were able to use it to not have to play in the FA cup, were able to spend their days lounging by the poolside, and then come back refreshed and win the league early is all forgotten. Even the team that Utd. put out were more like a Carling cup side than the premiership side that had beat all before it the previous year, and would rightly be seen as the best in the world AT THAT TIME.

PHB

astrofool, United were forced by the FA to play in the WCC.


I think anyone who thinks Beckham was overrated needs to look at videos for two seasons.

A. Beckham in the treble season
B. Beckham in his last season in La Liga

In the latter, he was their best player. In the former, while he had a dodgy patch in the middle, remember those defining moments, when Keane headed the ball in for Juve, and when Ole scored from a corner? I'll give you one guess to who whipped in the ball perfectly.
Beckham for his clubs was so much more than free kicks. He could dribble, he just wasn't fast, so instead of beating a man, he'd flick the ball a half yard to the side and whip it in. Do you realise how many goals Yorke and Cole scored from headers? 17 assists in the league!! 23 overall! not to mention 6 goals.
Bentley has 6 and 9
Cole has 7 and 6
Young has 4 and 16, the only one close to him, which is a testament to how good Young has been this year.

Beckham was a world class player, i.e., the best right sided midfielder in the world, for at least 2-3 years of his life.

iregk

Tauren wrote: »

As for your 'only the final matters', will that is just picking and chosing, isn't it.

Your missing my point. No it doesn't mean Barnsley are a better team than Chelsea, we know that Chelsea are better but Barnsley played better and were better in the game that counted.

Lets put it this way. Chelsea got the better of Valencia in the group stages this year however lets say Chelsea got them in the final and Valencia won 2-0. Would it make a difference what the result was in the group? Of course not. Would anyone remember those games? Most likely not. The result that matters is the final and thats how you get remembered. Valencia would be remembered as a better team than Chelsea as they beat them in the final regardless of weather they got a kicking in the group.

Also has everyone fogotten the one thing that was drilled into us growing up playing ball. Let the ball do the work! A lot of people base their liking or dislike of Beckham because he coudn't dribble. Why bother wasting energy dribbling when you can pass your way around like he could?

smemon

iregk wrote: »

Simple. Money. The south american leagues are class, the level of play is top notch as is the entertainment. The problem is it just doesn't have the money. So top players such as Kaka, Ronaldinho see that they can earn 100k a week in Europe why not rather than earn 20k a week?

exactly, so we're all in agreement the world's best players play in europe, which renders the 'oh but x and y league is the best in the world...' redundant.

ok, the english league or spanish, italian may not be the attractive or exciting for neutrals, but we have the best players in europe, there's more at stake and in my opinion, there's more passion and will to win in the game here in europe.

all in all, it makes europe the best place in world football to play your football.

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote: »

Your missing my point. No it doesn't mean Barnsley are a better team than Chelsea, we know that Chelsea are better but Barnsley played better and were better in the game that counted.

Lets put it this way. Chelsea got the better of Valencia in the group stages this year however lets say Chelsea got them in the final and Valencia won 2-0. Would it make a difference what the result was in the group? Of course not. Would anyone remember those games? Most likely not. The result that matters is the final and thats how you get remembered. Valencia would be remembered as a better team than Chelsea as they beat them in the final regardless of weather they got a kicking in the group.

So you base yuour opinions of teams on one game, as opposed to their general performance when it is a final, but scratch that when it is not? Wonderful.

astrofool

PHB wrote: »

astrofool, United were forced by the FA to play in the WCC.

Oh I know, but it didn't change the fact that the trip ended up as a glorified holiday for Utd. while the FA failed spectacularly at putting in a decent bid for the World cup anyway.

iregk

Tauren wrote: »

So you base yuour opinions of teams on one game, as opposed to their general performance when it is a final, but scratch that when it is not? Wonderful.

There is no point even talking to you anymore. Your picking certain points and ignoring the entire context of a post. I'm done.

iregk

smemon wrote: »

there's more passion and will to win in the game here in europe.

Have you ever actually football from south america? Watch the copa this year and then come back here and post up that there is more passion and will in europe.

The biggest derbys in europe fade away so quietly when you see the passion of those in south america.

LuckyLloyd

I remember watching that Vasco / Utd game and thinking "**** me, that's football". Vasco bossed it and Edmundo and Romario operated on a different planet.

However, Utd could have many very legitimate excuses as to why they weren't at the races that day (climate, disinterest, etc).

At the end of the day you win or you lose football matches. How you win is kinda irrelevant - something that can be debated after the winners have drank themselves silly celebrating and the losers have kicked something in frustration and drank themselves silly commiserating.

Utd were inferior to Bayern on the day in 1999 but didn't give up and snatched it at the death. Liverpool were inferior to Chelsea and Milan in 2005 but didn't give up and rode their luck to the trophy.

Revisionist debates over who deserved what are usually a great waste of time. Beckham wasn't the most important part of the treble winning side anyway - take Keane away for the whole of that season and there is no treble. Add Keane into the final and there is probably no need for last gasp heroics.

I'm sure passionate Utd fans still remember the day in great detail just as I remember 2005 in great detail. It's good that NTL is willing to question stuff that is supposedly set in stone. At the end of the day people should be able to discuss this stuff without reverting to strong language and borderline abuse. It doesn't really matter because the margins between success and failure at that level are so very tight.

Mr Alan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Liverpool were inferior to Chelsea in 2005

:eek:
Hold on a second!