Manchester City vs Manchester United Match Thread 22/9/2013 k/o 16.00 Sky.

amiable

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That was my point tbh, don't know how you missed it.

Moyes did wonders with the players at his disposal, aka the ones he bought, that averaged 11.6m a season in transfer fees. If you think he should have had a better record against City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool, who spend hundreds of millions between them each summer, you really are deluded.

His record against big teams is terrible because he didn't have the calibre of players needed to consistently beat the likes of United and Liverpool. What he did do is beat teams at the level of his own club and finish 6th in the last two seasons.

United are banking on the fact that if he can do that at Everton with so little resources, well then given time and ample resources he could have United where they want to be, challenging on all fronts, it is a huge risk but it could well pay off. There's no point judging him after 5 games, that is utter stupidity from anyone who does, there's 8 months of football still to be played.

Hundreds of millions each summer? Stick to the facts. When is the last time Arsenal, Liverpool or Man United spent over £100 million in a summer?

amiable

So there needs to be a controversial incident in a game for people to want to talk about the champions getting beat 4-1?

Mars Bar

He said hundreds of millions between them each summer.

Mars Bar

amiable wrote: »

So there needs to be a controversial incident in a game for people to want to talk about the champions getting beat 4-1?

Well let's start with you so. What are your talking points then?

amiable

Mars Bar wrote: »

Well let's start with you so. What are your talking points then?

I misread his post but that just makes his point worse to group teams spending together

amiable

Mars Bar wrote: »

Well let's start with you so. What are your talking points then?

How kind of you

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

So there needs to be a controversial incident in a game for people to want to talk about the champions getting beat 4-1?

Not at all. My point was that if something controversial had happened, there would be a lot more posts in this thread, that's all!

Rayne Wooney

amiable wrote: »

I misread his post but that just makes his point worse to group teams spending together

What are you on about?

I'm not working out the average of the transfers of all 5 teams for the past 11 years because I know it's a lot higher than Everton's 11.6m and I'm not really arsed because my point still does stand either way.

amiable

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

What are you on about?

I'm not working out the average of the transfers of all 5 teams for the past 11 years because I know it's a lot higher than Everton's 11.6m and I'm not really arsed because my point still does stand either way.

Well if you are not arsed there's no point in me replying

Moyes

"and then i said, it's ok Alex its only a game, thats the last thing I remember"

Rayne Wooney

amiable wrote: »

Well if you are not arsed there's no point in me replying

Average Transfer spending per season since Moyes took over in 2002.

Everton: 12.5m

City: 65.3m
Chelsea: 64.1m
Liverpool: 41.5m
Manchester United: 37.2m
Arsenal: 23.5m

Rayne Wooney

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Average Transfer spending per season since Moyes took over in 2002.

Everton: 12.5m

City: 65.3m
Chelsea: 64.1m
Liverpool: 41.5m
Manchester United: 37.2m
Arsenal: 23.5m

Gross I'd imagine.

bucketybuck

rarnes1 wrote: »

Gross I'd imagine.

Yeah, it was a pretty bad performance alright.

Chucky the tree

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That was my point tbh, don't know how you missed it.

Moyes did wonders with the players at his disposal, aka the ones he bought, that averaged 11.6m a season in transfer fees. If you think he should have had a better record against City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool, who spend hundreds of millions between them each summer, you really are deluded.

His record against big teams is terrible because he didn't have the calibre of players needed to consistently beat the likes of United and Liverpool. What he did do is beat teams at the level of his own club and finish 6th in the last two seasons.

United are banking on the fact that if he can do that at Everton with so little resources, well then given time and ample resources he could have United where they want to be, challenging on all fronts, it is a huge risk but it could well pay off. There's no point judging him after 5 games, that is utter stupidity from anyone who does, there's 8 months of football still to be played.

A good manager will get his players to perform above their level every so often. it's what Fergie was able to do a lot of the time at United. Moyes is in capable of that judging by his track record. His record against big teams is poor because he is not a good enough tactician as manager. That won't change.

Rayne Wooney

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A good manager will get his players to perform above their level every so often. it's what Fergie was able to do a lot of the time at United. Moyes is in capable of that judging by his track record. His record against big teams is poor because he is not a good enough tactician as manager. That won't change.

Moyes won 55% of games against City and 14% against Liverpool, United and Arsenal. Is that not getting his players to perform above their level "every so often"?

I think you're just making stuff up now to fit your terrible argument.

Liam O

Lol at some Liverpool fans talking about managers out of their depth, not every manager has to win 3 league titles and a CL to show they are talented. Sure didn't Liverpool and their fans run out Hodgson only to get a far inferior manager in?

I had a lot of faith that Moyes was a good appointment. Every week I eagerly anticipate the starting lineup only to be disappointed but I have a feeling this will be the wakeup call he needs. There's no way he can think Cleverly or Fellaini are better than Kagawa in the behind the striker role when Kags is at full fitness which I really hope is actually the reason he is not playing. He signed Nani to a new deal and still doesn't play him which is baffling. Not seeing Valencia's deficiencies is another baffling thing.

I think the problem might honestly be that he didn't think he'd ever get the job and didn't pay much attention to United's games last season. Players being on international duty and injuries may have forced him into a bad evaluation of the players in the squad. I have faith he'll see the light sooner rather than later but selections like today are very troubling.

Chucky the tree

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Moyes won 55% of games against City and 14% against Liverpool, United and Arsenal. Is that not getting his players to perform above their level "every so often"?

I think you're just making stuff up now to fit your terrible argument.

The majority of those wins again City would have came when City were at the same level as Everton. Never beaten a side away that finished inside the top 4. Jugding by his performances so far even with a far better team that record looks like staying in tact.

NukaCola

Liam O wrote: »

Sure didn't Liverpool and their fans run out Hodgson only to get a far inferior manager in?

No.

Blatter

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The majority of those wins again City would have came when City were at the same level as Everton. Never beaten a side away that finished inside the top 4. Jugding by his performances so far even with a far better team that record looks like staying in tact.

Pretty sure he beat City away the season they finished 3rd, 2010/11.

Chucky the tree

Blatter wrote: »

Pretty sure he beat City away the season they finished 3rd, 2010/11.

Yea, double checking I think it has happened twice.

Turtyturd

NukaCola wrote: »

No.

Don't ruin it for him.....he put 6 hours into coming up with that.

EuropeanSon

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Average Transfer spending per season since Moyes took over in 2002.

Everton: 12.5m

City: 65.3m
Chelsea: 64.1m
Liverpool: 41.5m
Manchester United: 37.2m
Arsenal: 23.5m

Pretty sure that Arsenal figure is wrong, our net spend was usually negative iirc. Even the Ozil signing shouldn't make it that high.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Pretty sure that Arsenal figure is wrong, our net spend was usually negative iirc. Even the Ozil signing shouldn't make it that high.

I'd say it's only transfers in, which is never a proper way to gauge a clubs spending

richierichballs

even webb couldn't help them.

DoctorGonzo08

Liam O wrote: »

I had a lot of faith that Moyes was a good appointment. Every week I eagerly anticipate the starting lineup only to be disappointed but I have a feeling this will be the wakeup call he needs. There's no way he can think Cleverly or Fellaini are better than Kagawa in the behind the striker role when Kags is at full fitness which I really hope is actually the reason he is not playing. He signed Nani to a new deal and still doesn't play him which is baffling. Not seeing Valencia's deficiencies is another baffling thing.

I don't think you can compare Kagawa with the two mentioned, as who are you going to play in Centre Field? That was the main problem Utd had yesterday that they were completely overrun in the middle of the park. Bringing Cleverly on was to try and tighten that up, rather than play behind the striker. Surely you would be considering dropping Wellbeck or Rooney for Kagawa to play behind RVP, rather than dropping an already weak CM to add another playmaker?

JP Liz V1

Bad loss for MU

ROCKMAN

richierichballs wrote: »

even webb couldn't help them.

Yes was disappointed with Webb Yesterday ,Was his chance to put himself in the shop window etc ,With a new manager in place and his contract up for renewal ,Think we'll be looking around in the January window ,just not Utd standard ....

aperture_nuig

richierichballs wrote: »

even webb couldn't help them.

1/10

Rayne Wooney

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Pretty sure that Arsenal figure is wrong, our net spend was usually negative iirc. Even the Ozil signing shouldn't make it that high.

Transfers in, transfers out are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Hulk Hands

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd say it's only transfers in, which is never a proper way to gauge a clubs spending

Here's the average net spend per season since 2003.

Everton: -3.5m

Chelsea: 53.2m
City: 45.9m
Liverpool: 17.5m
Manchester United: 15.2m
Arsenal: 1.5m

Shows how well Everton have done having actually lost money, along with Arsenal. Obviously United have done brilliant to dominate despite the 3 bigger spenders

citytillidie

or it shows if your get lucky and get a player through the youth system or cheap and then sell on for a huge amount it will effect your net spend in lots of ways, ie Rooney from Everton to United and Ronaldo from United to Real

Giggsy11

citytillidie wrote: »

or it shows if your get lucky and get a player through the youth system or cheap and then sell on for a huge amount it will effect your net spend in lots of ways, ie Rooney from Everton to United and Ronaldo from United to Real

Or getting 50 Million for a washed up player.