Man Utd Thread:

[Farrandeelin]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

I can't help feeling if United played the Milan sides in the final instead of one of the greatest club sides of all time they would be on 5 CL titles now. when fergie retires i think he'll finish on 4 Cl titles but the question will remain "Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL?" don't think so when you consider before he came... United where only on 1 European cup win.

As for Chelsea IMO they where the best club team in Europe in 2005 Liverpool just happened to win the cup.

I can't help feeling that if ye had knocked Milan out in the semi final in '07, Liverpool would have 6 EC/CL titles now. Ye didn't though. They outclassed ye and it is what it is.

Nevermind 6..If Heysel had never happened Liverpool would have 7 or 8 European Cups by now.

If the Munich air crash hadn't happened, Utd may have more than only 3...

[Blowitupref]

Lads, now that the dust has settled after weekend - a serious question?

Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL? 2 wins in all those years and with all the great squads he had. It could also be argued that both wins had an element of good fortune about them (which if course is always needed to win these ones).

But when you look back and see some of them teams that have won (including the great LFC team of 2005  ), its clear that United should have won more.

The question is why they haven't?

I can't help feeling if United played the Milan sides in the final instead of one of the greatest club sides of all time they would be on 5 CL titles now. when fergie retires i think he'll finish on 4 Cl titles but the question will remain "Has Fergie under-achieved in the CL?" don't think so when you consider before he came... United where only on 1 European cup win.

As for Chelsea IMO they where the best club team in Europe in 2005 Liverpool just happened to win the cup.

I can't help feeling that if ye had knocked Milan out in the semi final in '07, Liverpool would have 6 EC/CL titles now. Ye didn't though. They outclassed ye and it is what it is.

Nevermind 6..If Heysel had never happened Liverpool would have 7 or 8 European Cups by now.

If the Munich air crash hadn't happened, Utd may have more than only 3...

Good point from both.

[Norf Tyrone]

I don't think Chelsea have been close to been one of the top teams in Europe, in England yes, but in Europe they've been consistently average.

Chelsea have been as far as the CL semi-final in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. If that's average, what's above average?

Actually winning those semi's on a consistent basis, not just the once. Top teams win finals, not make the semi's.

As Norf Tyrone says, does that mean Porto, Liverpool and Inter were better teams than Chelsea over that period?

In some seasons they were and some they weren't. Wasn't it the case that in something like 6 CL matches V LFC, that chelsea scored 1 goal? By the way, I don't think any of those teams were top European teams over the same period but they all achieved alot more than Chelsea. In fact with 3 European trophies, Porto's record puts Chelsea's to shame.

Chelsea have had zero luck in the Champions League over the years. There was one or two years they would've been without doubt deserving winners, but that means nothing.

2004- Monaco score with a handball.
2005- The ghost goal (I know, I know)
2006- Drogba's dismissal in Camp Nou and Frisk gate
2007- Losing on penalities
2008- Where Ferdinand should've been sent off and Chelsae hitting the woodword 2 or 3 times.
2009- Overbo and the four penalty claims (I can guarantee that if the roles were reversed that night, or if it had've been one of the G12 affected there would've been more of a hue and cry about that night.
2010- The penalty that should've been for Kalou in the Nou Camp and the subsequent red card (Brazilian IM defender whose name escapes me).
2011- The penalty that should've been for Ramires at the Bridge, and an offside goal at Old Trafford.

Now that's not to say that in every year we deserved to win it, nor did we deserve to win all the games highlighted, but it does illustrate the absence of luck and the need for it to with any cup, never mind the CL.


Chelsea's head to head record v Liverpool is better for the record.

Chelsea 0 Liverpool 0
0-1
0-0
0-0
1-0
0-1
1-1
3-2
3-1
4-4

Chelsea P10 W3 D5 L2 F12 A10

Also for the record, as you've got that wrong too, Porto have 5 European trophies, not 3.

[deiseach]

No luck? The 'ghost goal' was lucky, Cech should have been red carded and Liverpool given a penalty. Or the ref missing Carvalho manhandling Barca's goalie when Terry scored the winner that year - funny how Jose didn't mention that in his rant this year about refs favouring Barcelona. But in general, Chelsea are owed a few

[Bingo]

I wasn't refering to porto's total history, just the period when Chelsea were so called a top European club. This is the 3 trophy period was talking about - 2 uefa cups and a CL.

In that period Liverpool v Chelsea the record is:

1 CL winner & 1 runner up V 1 runner up. That's the stat I'd refer to first and foremost. 

[magpie seanie]

I don't think Chelsea have been close to been one of the top teams in Europe, in England yes, but in Europe they've been consistently average.

Chelsea have been as far as the CL semi-final in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. If that's average, what's above average?

Actually winning those semi's on a consistent basis, not just the once. Top teams win finals, not make the semi's.

As Norf Tyrone says, does that mean Porto, Liverpool and Inter were better teams than Chelsea over that period?

In some seasons they were and some they weren't. Wasn't it the case that in something like 6 CL matches V LFC, that chelsea scored 1 goal? By the way, I don't think any of those teams were top European teams over the same period but they all achieved alot more than Chelsea. In fact with 3 European trophies, Porto's record puts Chelsea's to shame.

Chelsea have had zero luck in the Champions League over the years. There was one or two years they would've been without doubt deserving winners, but that means nothing.

2004- Monaco score with a handball.
2005- The ghost goal (I know, I know)
2006- Drogba's dismissal in Camp Nou and Frisk gate
2007- Losing on penalities
2008- Where Ferdinand should've been sent off and Chelsae hitting the woodword 2 or 3 times.
2009- Overbo and the four penalty claims (I can guarantee that if the roles were reversed that night, or if it had've been one of the G12 affected there would've been more of a hue and cry about that night.2010- The penalty that should've been for Kalou in the Nou Camp and the subsequent red card (Brazilian IM defender whose name escapes me).
2011- The penalty that should've been for Ramires at the Bridge, and an offside goal at Old Trafford.

Now that's not to say that in every year we deserved to win it, nor did we deserve to win all the games highlighted, but it does illustrate the absence of luck and the need for it to with any cup, never mind the CL.


Chelsea's head to head record v Liverpool is better for the record.

Chelsea 0 Liverpool 0
0-1
0-0
0-0
1-0
0-1
1-1
3-2
3-1
4-4

Chelsea P10 W3 D5 L2 F12 A10

Also for the record, as you've got that wrong too, Porto have 5 European trophies, not 3.

Not sure about all of those but the one highlighted is undoubted. It was just crazy that night. Sympathy for Chelsea will always be in short supply though because of Abramovich.

[Carmen Stateside]

Had to get this thread out of the fourth page.
Wazzas hair transplant seems to be working well

[ross4life]

I can't get my head around the hair transplanting business could he not go bald gracefully like Peter Canavan?

[Carmen Stateside]

Cant understand myself.  Whats the big deal with being bald anyhow?  Had to be a bet or something.

[Bingo]

Cant understand myself.  Whats the big deal with being bald anyhow?  Had to be a bet or something.

I'd have no doubt its his marketing people/agents advising him to clean up his imagine/act as they try to relauch brand Rooney after his stressful year!

[AQMP]

Cant understand myself.  Whats the big deal with being bald anyhow?  Had to be a bet or something.

I'd have no doubt its his marketing people/agents advising him to clean up his imagine/act as they try to relauch brand Rooney after his stressful year!

Can we look forward to a shaven headed Ryan Giggs this time next year, then??

[DuffleKing]

Talk of the Ashley Young deal being tied up for 16m. I'm not sure about the value there.

[Bingo]

Cant understand myself.  Whats the big deal with being bald anyhow?  Had to be a bet or something.

I'd have no doubt its his marketing people/agents advising him to clean up his imagine/act as they try to relauch brand Rooney after his stressful year!

Can we look forward to a shaven headed Ryan Giggs this time next year, then??

"Ryan Giggs Yoga 2:Keeping calm when cheating"

Sure to be a big stocking filler at christmas.

[nrico2006]

Talk of the Ashley Young deal being tied up for 16m. I'm not sure about the value there.

I think Young will prove to be a very good buy.  £16 million is the kind of money you would expect him to go for.  When you look at what Carrick was bought for or what Henderson is being flouted for, then this looks a great bit of business.

[gawa316]

Talk of the Ashley Young deal being tied up for 16m. I'm not sure about the value there.

I think Young will prove to be a very good buy.  £16 million is the kind of money you would expect him to go for.  When you look at what Carrick was bought for or what Henderson is being flouted for, then this looks a great bit of business.

Think he only has a year left on his contract though.

Good player all the same