The Big Question: United vs Liverpool - Read Mod Note in OP

kryogen

United have played well this season and lost, played ****e and won.

Enjoying this season, even with the worst run of injuries I have ever seen at the club. It beats the **** out of last season anyway!

monkey9

CSF wrote: »

2 fairly bad sides. United seem to be pulling the results out of the bag without playing well whereas Liverpool haven't done that, and that has been the difference between them this season because I've rarely been convinced by the performances of either.

Agree with this. At this stage, you'd have to go for Man U to finish higher with their attacking options, but both will probably finish outside the top four which is the real target.

kryogen

United will finish 3rd probably, Liverpool will be back to their customary 7th or 8th

The Moldy Gowl

Utd should get third.

Liverpool will go back to their usual spots of 8-4.

Don't think those predictions are too far fetched.

Kryogen Rex??


Thought I was reading the same post twice for a second!

viper006

Its actually mind boggling the 2 teams are even being compared really. United has assembled the most expensive squad in the history of football. In Di Maria they spent more on one player than whole squads like palace and burnley even cost.

Liverpool are in trouble no doubt but we sold our prize asset to fund the spending. United are just spending like no team has ever done adding to a team that won the league only a couple season ago.

It should be an absolute shoe in united get top 4 this season with the players they have brought, say what you want about city but they still big and won the league. United are under huge pressure on all fronts to do the same really, see alot here trying to lower expectations which is crazy really after such spending.

Can safely sat liverpool will seriously struggle for top 4 this season, the signings were underwhelming at the time and looking truly terrible as the season progresses. Selling suarez with barca funding the transfer by selling sanchez to arsenal and fab to chelsea was a killer blow really.Worrying times ahead

Will I Amnt

viper006 wrote: »

Its actually mind boggling the 2 teams are even being compared really. United has assembled the most expensive squad in the history of football. In Di Maria they spent more on one player than whole squads like palace and burnley even cost.

Liverpool are in trouble no doubt but we sold our prize asset to fund the spending. United are just spending like no team has ever done adding to a team that won the league only a couple season ago.

It should be an absolute shoe in united get top 4 this season with the players they have brought, say what you want about city but they still big and won the league. United are under huge pressure on all fronts to do the same really, see alot here trying to lower expectations which is crazy really after such spending.

Can safely sat liverpool will seriously struggle for top 4 this season, the signings were underwhelming at the time and looking truly terrible as the season progresses. Selling suarez with barca funding the transfer by selling sanchez to arsenal and fab to chelsea was a killer blow really.Worrying times ahead

For all the money United spent there was only 1 of those new signings on the pitch on Saturday if you exclude Luke Shaw's 10 minute cameo. Rojo, Blind, Falcao, Shaw and Herrera have all picked up injuries, the entire first choice back line is currently out injured. Unless things change drastically on that front there will be no shoe-ins.

There's a lot wrong with the rest of your assessment of the United squad but I haven't the time or will to argue it.

NIMAN

Taking 3 x €20 bets off Liverpool fans in work who said Pool would finish higher.

Like candy from babies!

(I'm not a Utd fan btw, just someone who can see easy money when its presented to them).

Will I Amnt

NIMAN wrote: »

Taking 3 x €20 bets off Liverpool fans in work who said Pool would finish higher.

Like candy from babies!

(I'm not a Utd fan btw, just someone who can see easy money when its presented to them).

I've a €100 bet with a mate, I'm only trying to take back what I lost last year :pac:

kryogen

rarnes1 wrote: »

Kryogen Rex??


Thought I was reading the same post twice for a second!

Jesus no, I don't think ye will get anything close to 4th unless something changes big time there! 7th or 8th I said

kryogen

viper006 wrote: »

United has assembled the most expensive squad in the history of football.

You may want to change that part of your post to something more accurate.

PhlegmyMoses

viper006 wrote: »

Its actually mind boggling the 2 teams are even being compared really. United has assembled the most expensive squad in the history of football. In Di Maria they spent more on one player than whole squads like palace and burnley even cost.

Liverpool are in trouble no doubt but we sold our prize asset to fund the spending. United are just spending like no team has ever done adding to a team that won the league only a couple season ago.

It should be an absolute shoe in united get top 4 this season with the players they have brought, say what you want about city but they still big and won the league. United are under huge pressure on all fronts to do the same really, ithsee alot here trying to lower expectations which is crazy really after such spending.

Can safely sat liverpool will seriously struggle for top 4 this season, the signings were underwhelming at the time and looking truly terrible as the season progresses. Selling suarez with barca funding the transfer by selling sanchez to arsenal and fab to chelsea was a killer blow really.Worrying times ahead

There is no balance to this post. If you take into account United's spending, you must also take into account United's injury crisis. We started the game against Arsenal with 2 youth team players at CB and ended the game with 3 youth team players on the pitch. The spending is tempered by the injury woes.

Also, I don't think United are the most expensive team ever. Sure Real Madrid had Ronaldo, Kaka, Alonso and Benzema amounting to 200m alone at one stage. And City took 3 years of monstrous spending to win the league and look like they are going to forfeit their title without much of a challenge this year.

Rayne Wooney

viper006 wrote: »

Its actually mind boggling the 2 teams are even being compared really. United has assembled the most expensive squad in the history of football. In Di Maria they spent more on one player than whole squads like palace and burnley even cost.

Liverpool are in trouble no doubt but we sold our prize asset to fund the spending. United are just spending like no team has ever done adding to a team that won the league only a couple season ago.

It should be an absolute shoe in united get top 4 this season with the players they have brought, say what you want about city but they still big and won the league. United are under huge pressure on all fronts to do the same really, see alot here trying to lower expectations which is crazy really after such spending.

Can safely sat liverpool will seriously struggle for top 4 this season, the signings were underwhelming at the time and looking truly terrible as the season progresses. Selling suarez with barca funding the transfer by selling sanchez to arsenal and fab to chelsea was a killer blow really.Worrying times ahead

Liverpool have spent over 200 million over the last 3 seasons, same as United, United have spent about 50 million more

CSF

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There is no balance to this post. If you take into account United's spending, you must also take into account United's injury crisis. We started the game against Arsenal with 2 youth team players at CB and ended the game with 3 youth team players on the pitch. The spending is tempered by the injury woes.

Also, I don't think United are the most expensive team ever. Sure Real Madrid had Ronaldo, Kaka, Alonso and Benzema amounting to 200m alone at one stage. And City took 3 years of monstrous spending to win the league and look like they are going to forfeit their title without much of a challenge this year.

I don't know if that stat is 100% accurate, but I did read a stat (which may or may not tell the full story) that Man United have spent more than City since the arrival of City's owners.

To change a phrase widely used by some fans a few years ago. No 4th spots are given out in November


Tbh, going by emails and texts there was a trophy won at the weekend!!

PhlegmyMoses

CSF wrote: »

I don't know if that stat is 100% accurate, but I did read a stat (which may or may not tell the full story) that Man United have spent more than City since the arrival of City's owners.

I'd say it's close enough and both teams have won the same amount of titles in that time. Money is a huge factor, no doubt, it just needs to be balanced against certain other factors at times.

If Chelsea were missing their 3 best centre backs for vast swathes of this season, their points tally would most likely be not as good as it is.

PhlegmyMoses

rarnes1 wrote: »

To change a phrase widely used by some fans a few years ago. No 4th spots are given out in November


Tbh, going by emails and texts there was a trophy won at the weekend!!

I think Liverpool fans will get it back in spades this year due to last year's role reversal. I never get involved in it but spent last year hearing how it was the end of an era for United and that Liverpool were on the rise permanently.

Donnielighto

CSF wrote: »

I don't know if that stat is 100% accurate, but I did read a stat (which may or may not tell the full story) that Man United have spent more than City since the arrival of City's owners.

I'd be surprised by that. City had a good few players that they spent big and then sold for pittance early in the regime.

PhlegmyMoses

Donnielighto wrote: »

I'd be surprised by that. City had a good few players that they spent big and then sold for pittance early in the regime.

It's not net spend but gross overall spend.

CSF

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It's not net spend but gross overall spend.

Yup

PhlegmyMoses

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I think Liverpool fans will get it back in spades this year due to last year's role reversal. I never get involved in it but spent last year hearing how it was the end of an era for United and that Liverpool were on the rise permanently.

Who said all that with a straight face?

Iused2likebusts

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There is no balance to this post. If you take into account United's spending, you must also take into account United's injury crisis. We started the game against Arsenal with 2 youth team players at CB and ended the game with 3 youth team players on the pitch. The spending is tempered by the injury woes.

The manager decided to play 3 at the back he could've just played 2 CBs Smalling and 1 of the other lads he also choose to bring on Wilson over mata Herrera so he obviously rates those young lads. Although Utd have had lots of injuries arsenal were missing just as many of there first choice 11 as Utd at the weekend.

Rayne Wooney

If you look at the 2008 CL final team a lot of the players still play for United, we either hold on to players or sell them for little

City have spent 740 million since their owners took over and United 470 million in that time

Bounty Hunter

Utd seem to be benefitting from the fact that so many other teams inc Liverpool (and Arsenal and spurs) have been pretty poor so far usually if a team had had the injuries and even results united have they would not be so fancied for a cl spot

PhlegmyMoses

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

The manager decided to play 3 at the back he could've just played 2 CBs Smalling and 1 of the other lads he also choose to bring on Wilson over mata Herrera so he obviously rates those young lads. Although Utd have had lots of injuries arsenal were missing just as many of there first choice 11 as Utd at the weekend.

Again, loads of this just isn't correct. Arsenal were missing 4 first teamers, if you consider Debuchy a nailed on first team player. All playing in different positions, two of whom are midfielders, Arsenal's deepest area. It'd be like United having 2 strikers or number 10s and two defenders missing: not an injury crisis. United had 7 potential first team players missing, 4 of whom are defenders and one is a defensive midfielder/centre back.

LVG went for 352 as a tactic. Sure, he could have gone for 442 or whatever, but he didn't. Weird point. Are you honestly trying to say that United's injuries haven't been that big of a deal this year? What is your overall point?

A little off topic and maybe one for the mods
but a dedicated Liverpool v Utd thread might be an idea?

Would keep the superthreads dedicated to their own team and stop the off topic posts.

Just a thought

Shanotheslayer

rarnes1 wrote: »

A little off topic and maybe one for the mods
but a dedicated Liverpool v Utd thread might be an idea?

Would keep the superthreads dedicated to their own team and stop the off topic posts.

Just a thought

Probably a good idea, but realistically every thread gets turned into one anyway :P

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Probably a good idea, but realistically every thread gets turned into one anyway :P

Exactly, that's the point!

Nalz

rarnes1 wrote: »

Lol, 13 points from 1st and 5 points ahead of a brutal Liverpool team is hardly time to get a stiffy. Times have certainly changed

I bet you didn't lol at all

Trilla

Trilla wrote: »

I bet you didn't lol at all

It was in reply to a post that has since been deleted

Nalz

rarnes1 wrote: »

It was in reply to a post that has since been deleted

but I bet you didn't lol!

Augmerson

Trilla wrote: »

I bet you didn't lol at all

I was there and can confirm he did lol to the extent it was almost a lmao but not quite more of a rofl.

Nalz

Augmerson wrote: »

I was there and can confirm he did lol to the extent it was almost a lmao but not quite more of a rofl.

oops sorry my mistake

Trilla

Trilla wrote: »

but I bet you didn't lol!

More like a hohoho whole rubbing the nipples with ice cubes

Nalz

rarnes1 wrote: »

More like a hohoho whole rubbing the nipples with ice cubes

rule 1 or gtfo

Will I Amnt

A dedicated Liverpool v United thread??? I've heard it all now :pac:
Where was this suggestion last season? The superthreads are no different than they ever were, Liverpool fans will always discuss United and vice-versa. You gotta take the rough with the smooth.

Will I Amnt

Will I Amnt wrote: »

A dedicated Liverpool v United thread??? I've heard it all now :pac:
Where was this suggestion last season? The superthreads are no different than they ever were, Liverpool fans will always discuss United and vice-versa. You gotta take the rough with the smooth.

?

I'm talking about man Utd being discussed in the pool superthread and I'd imagine vice versa. Mainly by own fans btw.

You'll find its the same posters doing it too.

So, you obviously misunderstood.

Iused2likebusts

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Again, loads of this just isn't correct. Arsenal were missing 4 first teamers, if you consider Debuchy a nailed on first team player. All playing in different positions, two of whom are midfielders, Arsenal's deepest area. It'd be like United having 2 strikers or number 10s and two defenders missing: not an injury crisis. United had 7 potential first team players missing, 4 of whom are defenders and one is a defensive midfielder/centre back.

LVG went for 352 as a tactic. Sure, he could have gone for 442 or whatever, but he didn't. Weird point. Are you honestly trying to say that United's injuries haven't been that big of a deal this year? What is your overall point?

What exactly isnt correct from my initial point? My point is you were trying to argue that LVG was forced to field 3 youth players when in fact he could easily have just used 1. He has faith in these young players and they repaid him at the weekend. I would say utd were missing a RB a Lb when shaw went off. A CB to start alongside smalling. Rojo, evans and jones cant all start and the 4 senior CBs are all more or less at the same level IMO. Carrick and Blind who knows who is first choice and you could argue that falcao is first choice . All in all Id say Utd were down 4 players from their strongest eleven as were arsenal Debuchy, koscielny, walcott, ozil plus it was too early to start giroud. So Id say both teams missed 4 first choice players.

Bounty Hunter

rarnes1 wrote: »

A little off topic and maybe one for the mods
but a dedicated Liverpool v Utd thread might be an idea?

Would keep the superthreads dedicated to their own team and stop the off topic posts.

Just a thought

Perhaps i'm missing something.... is that not this thread already?

PhlegmyMoses

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

What exactly isnt correct from my initial point? My point is you were trying to argue that LVG was forced to field 3 youth players when in fact he could easily have just used 1. He has faith in these young players and they repaid him at the weekend. I would say utd were missing a RB a Lb when shaw went off. A CB to start alongside smalling. Rojo, evans and jones cant all start and the 4 senior CBs are all more or less at the same level IMO. Carrick and Blind who knows who is first choice and you could argue that falcao is first choice . All in all Id say Utd were down 4 players from their strongest eleven as were arsenal Debuchy, koscielny, walcott, ozil plus it was too early to start giroud. So Id say both teams missed 4 first choice players.

So Arsenal have the same injury problems as United? United's injury problems haven't been a big deal.

And the reason why he went 352 is because he has no right back. He plays Valencia as a wingback so he has 3 defenders to cover for his defensive failings. When his left back gets injured 10 minutes into the game, he has to bring on another winger because Rojo, who is the left back cover, and Blind who can also play there, are both injured.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that United haven't been severely hampered by injuries? Because if it is, that's just wrong.

kryogen

rarnes1 wrote: »

?

I'm talking about man Utd being discussed in the pool superthread and I'd imagine vice versa. Mainly by own fans btw.

You'll find its the same posters doing it too.

So, you obviously misunderstood.

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea, and becoming stricter on de railing threads then that have nothing to do with Utd v Liverpool

Iused2likebusts

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

So Arsenal have the same injury problems as United? United's injury problems haven't been a big deal.

And the reason why he went 352 is because he has no right back. He plays Valencia as a wingback so he has 3 defenders to cover for his defensive failings. When his left back gets injured 10 minutes into the game, he has to bring on another winger because Rojo, who is the left back cover, and Blind who can also play there, are both injured.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that United haven't been severely hampered by injuries? Because if it is, that's just wrong.

It was his choice to play 3 at the back a tactical move that worked well. He played Valencia RB against Palace but choose to change the system. My point is that Utd haven't been as badly hampered by injuries as you are making out. Numbers wise there are a lot of injuries but its a lot of the same type player i.e the 3 cbs they cant all play. As I said both teams on Saturday were missing the same number of starting eleven players and again I was pulling you up on your point that LVG was forced to play 3 youth players when he could quite easily have played 1.
Maybe have a think of what your first choice eleven is and see how many first choice players are actually missing. The same as arsenal 4 or 5.

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

It was his choice to play 3 at the back a tactical move that worked well. He played Valencia RB against Palace but choose to change the system. My point is that Utd haven't been as badly hampered by injuries as you are making out. Numbers wise there are a lot of injuries but its a lot of the same type player i.e the 3 cbs they cant all play. As I said both teams on Saturday were missing the same number of starting eleven players and again I was pulling you up on your point that LVG was forced to play 3 youth players when he could quite easily have played 1.
Maybe have a think of what your first choice eleven is and see how many first choice players are actually missing. The same as arsenal 4 or 5.

I really can't agree with that. 40 injuries since LVG took over is unprecedented in the league. (Open to correction on the number)
Also on your point of a lot of the same type players are injured???
This leads to absolutely no stability in the backline with constant requirement to shuffle the squad week in week out to accommodate these injuries.
My Choice back four would be without question;
Rafeal, Smalling, Jones & Shaw all whom have been consistently out with injury, I would love to know if these four have played together once this season?

Will I Amnt

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

It was his choice to play 3 at the back a tactical move that worked well. He played Valencia RB against Palace but choose to change the system. My point is that Utd haven't been as badly hampered by injuries as you are making out. Numbers wise there are a lot of injuries but its a lot of the same type player i.e the 3 cbs they cant all play. As I said both teams on Saturday were missing the same number of starting eleven players and again I was pulling you up on your point that LVG was forced to play 3 youth players when he could quite easily have played 1.
Maybe have a think of what your first choice eleven is and see how many first choice players are actually missing. The same as arsenal 4 or 5.

That's a bizarre way of looking at it You are in bigger trouble if your first choice and your backup to those players are all out injured.

Iused2likebusts

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I really can't agree with that. 40 injuries since LVG took over is unprecedented in the league. (Open to correction on the number)
Also on your point of a lot of the same type players are injured???
This leads to absolutely no stability in the backline with constant requirement to shuffle the squad week in week out to accommodate these injuries.
My Choice back four would be without question;
Rafeal, Smalling, Jones & Shaw all whom have been consistently out with injury, I would love to know if these four have played together once this season?

That's a fair point about the lack of a settled back four

PhlegmyMoses

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

It was his choice to play 3 at the back a tactical move that worked well. He played Valencia RB against Palace but choose to change the system. My point is that Utd haven't been as badly hampered by injuries as you are making out. Numbers wise there are a lot of injuries but its a lot of the same type player i.e the 3 cbs they cant all play. As I said both teams on Saturday were missing the same number of starting eleven players and again I was pulling you up on your point that LVG was forced to play 3 youth players when he could quite easily have played 1.
Maybe have a think of what your first choice eleven is and see how many first choice players are actually missing. The same as arsenal 4 or 5.

If you are missing 3 of the same type of player, it is worse than being missing 3 players in different positions. It means that not only are your first choice players gone, but your cover as well. It means you have to dig into your youth system for inexperienced players that may not even be good enough to cement a career in the championship, let alone the PL. The severity of injuries is completely relative to the standard of cover in these areas. I can't believe you aren't acknowledging this.

I'll make it clearer. If United lose Rooney they replace with Mata, Jones they replace with Smalling, DDG they replace with Lindegaard and Blind they replace with Carrick. That is 4 first team players injured but they are being replaced with quality that has proven itself over the years. If United lose Jones, Rafael, Rojo and Evans, it means we must play a winger at RB and at least one youth team player or midfielder at CB. This creates a far bigger problem. Do you get it now?

Also, it is one thing playing Valencia at RB against palace where we had 70% possession and another playing him against Arsenal. I think you are wilfully trying to downplay or ignore clear factors in every situation for some reason.

Iused2likebusts

Will I Amnt wrote: »

That's a bizarre way of looking at it You are in bigger trouble if your first choice and your backup to those players are all out injured.

Yet lvg choose to start his 6th choice cb in a system change

Bounty Hunter

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Perhaps i'm missing something.... is that not this thread already?

Well the opening post was who would finish higher in the league.

If it has defaulted into a Liverpool v Utd thread all the.better. It'll keep discussion away from the superthreads.

PhlegmyMoses

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Yet lvg choose to start his 6th choice cb in a system change

Because Valencia is a poor option at RB and if Shaw gets injured, you only have Young to replace him, which would leave you with 2 wingers and a youth teamer had we played a 442 or a variant of it.

He also may not rate Smalling enough to carry one CB through a game so opted for strength in numbers against an Arsenal side that play a lot of the game in Central areas.

But let's be honest, if he had the choice, he wouldn't be playing ANY youth team players in a match against our biggest rivals for 3rd/4th. You see, that's what happens with an injury crisis.

kryogen

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Yet lvg choose to start his 6th choice cb in a system change

Chose?