Do we look stronger?

Neil Thomson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
13,228
Location
Hippydom
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/2183024.stm" target="_blank">BBC Review</a>

We don't to me, certainly not in depth.
 
We do to me

Rio stregthens the team, none of the departures weaken it.

Ruud and Veron have had a year to settle in

Some promising youngesters seems to be ready to step up
 
We're definitely stronger with Rio and potentially Escude. We're stronger, younger, most importantly hungrier.
 
Dwight Yorke - no replacement
Paul Rachubka - luke steele replacement
Raimond van der Gouw - no replacement (or was Roy it last year?)
Ronnie Wallwork - O'Shea
Nick Culkin - Williams promoted
Denis Irwin - only if we have or do sign Escude
Ronny Johnsen - Rio.

Overall, we're weaker in depth, unless we do sign Escude and a 4th striker.
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>Dwight Yorke - no replacement
Paul Rachubka - luke steele replacement
Raimond van der Gouw - no replacement (or was Roy it last year?)
Ronnie Wallwork - O'Shea
Nick Culkin - Williams promoted
Denis Irwin - only if we have or do sign Escude
Ronny Johnsen - Rio.

Overall, we're weaker in depth, unless we do sign Escude and a 4th striker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dwight didn't really feature last season, and as you say, Roy already replaced Rai last season
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>Overall, we're weaker in depth, unless we do sign Escude and a 4th striker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Spot on really. The fact Yorke barely featured last season doesn't mean we still don't need that fourth man. We started last season with two strikers we have now AND Yorke and Cole. Now we only have Forlan. Err, thats quite thin.
Click to expand...
 
A lot depends on how Forlan starts the season. If he carries his preseason form into the season then we wont worry. If he reverts to trying to hard then we might look weak up front.

That said RVN and Ole arnt bad backup for Forlan ;)

(and, as previously posted SAF will save himself a headache by playing 5 in midfield occassionally, with just 1 up front)
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/2183024.stm" target="_blank">BBC Review</a>

We don't to me, certainly not in depth.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Think the importance of depth is overrated. Don't think rotation brings any stability or helps to lift the team in anyway. We have world class players at every possition in the first 11. Well, not perhaps the defence. Anyways, no use in buying 10 mediocre squad players who add nothing just in case and just because they're there. Buy those who adds something to the starting line-up. So in the end having a squad of 20 is unnecessary, only 11 can play and those who sit on the bench get in shite form.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by MancFanFromManc:
<strong>(and, as previously posted SAF will save himself a headache by playing 5 in midfield occassionally, with just 1 up front)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Save himself a head ache? For certain matches, five in midfield would be right, but thats not the majority of matches.

A fourth striker is still required. Heck, Liverpool and Arsenal have five around.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Amir:
<strong>

Save himself a head ache? For certain matches, five in midfield would be right, but thats not the majority of matches.

A fourth striker is still required. Heck, Liverpool and Arsenal have five around.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree that we should add another striker, but that doesn't mean we can't succeeed if we don't.

Overall, I don't think the current squad is any smaller or worse than when we won the trebble
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>

Think the importance of depth is overrated. Don't think rotation brings any stability or helps to lift the team in anyway. We have world class players at every possition in the first 11. Well, not perhaps the defence. Anyways, no use in buying 10 mediocre squad players who add nothing just in case and just because they're there. Buy those who adds something to the starting line-up. So in the end having a squad of 20 is unnecessary, only 11 can play and those who sit on the bench get in shite form.</strong><hr></blockquote>
United have been lucky with injuries in recent years - look at some of the injury crises that Leeds have had and you'll see that its quite possible to have 6-8 players out injured at one time. You can't rely on luck all the time.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
United have been lucky with injuries in recent years - look at some of the injury crises that Leeds have had and you'll see that its quite possible to have 6-8 players out injured at one time. You can't rely on luck all the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But is it luck? Is it a coincidence that teams like Liverpool and Tottenham seem to struggle with injuries all the time, while us and Arsenal don't in the same degree?

Could it have anything to with the medical team, the preparation, the training etc?

Also, we've had our fair share of injuries. Brown, Johnsen and Blomquist for a start have hardly played any football since 1999
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
United have been lucky with injuries in recent years - look at some of the injury crises that Leeds have had and you'll see that its quite possible to have 6-8 players out injured at one time. You can't rely on luck all the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, or do you make your own luck? Would say that being hit by injuries to that extent is not normal and even if we would be hit we have a line-up of extremely talented players who on their own can carry a team. Keane - Beckham - Giggs - RvN - Scholes - Veron - Butt. few teams can field such strong players so even if one or two of them are injured we can maintain our strength. I don't think there's much point in filling the squad with average internationals just in case. Let the youth take these positions, with the players mentioned we can compensate weaker links in the team for a while.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by An Extremely Boring Man:
<strong>

But is it luck? Is it a coincidence that teams like Liverpool and Tottenham seem to struggle with injuries all the time, while us and Arsenal don't in the same degree?

Could it have anything to with the medical team, the preparation, the training etc?

Also, we've had our fair share of injuries. Brown, Johnsen and Blomquist for a start have hardly played any football since 1999</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not to mention Keane, Becks, Giggs, Gary and Fab!

We are one of the fitness teams around. because we have so many world class players people forget how much work our team gets through. We're definately a lot better in terms of our training and prep than we used to be.

We are certainly well prep'd for this campaign - I'm bursting for tomorrow's game!
Click to expand...
 
At the end of last season both Ruud and Ole were out. I would be very worried this season if that happened again for any length of time.
 
Dwight Yorke - no replacement Yorke irrelevant last season.

Raimond van der Gouw - no replacement (or was Roy it last year?) Carrol last year.

Ronnie Wallwork - O'Shea Wallwork never made the grade.

Nick Culkin - Williams promoted

Denis Irwin - only if we have or do sign Escude. Irwin was way past his best by last year.

Ronny Johnsen - Rio.

Overall, we're weaker in depth, unless we do sign Escude and a 4th striker.[/QB][/QUOTE]


Overall we are stronger. O'Shea is stepping up. Ronnie was injured for much of last season. If we buy Escude we are better placed than last year.
 
Overall we're stronger. The defence was an issue last year and we addresssed it by signing Rio. The entire squad have another year of experience and growth, and young players like O'Shea look to be ready for the next level. Veron and Forlan seem to be hungry to show what they can do this year, and Keano is well rested. I think we're definitely in a stronger position to start the year on better form than we did last year.
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Overall we're stronger. The defence was an issue last year and we addresssed it by signing Rio. The entire squad have another year of experience and growth, and young players like O'Shea look to be ready for the next level. Veron and Forlan seem to be hungry to show what they can do this year, and Keano is well rested. I think we're definitely in a stronger position to start the year on better form than we did last year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think our squad is weaker, particularly compared to 99. And its certainly weaker in depth than Arsenal, and probably Liverpool as well now.
Click to expand...
 
I think last years squad we better than 99 on all areas except defending. This year will be even better. The difference between 99 and now is that the clubs around us have gotten better.
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>I think last years squad we better than 99 on all areas except defending. This year will be even better. The difference between 99 and now is that the clubs around us have gotten better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They certainly have. But in 99 we had 4 top strikers, and great backup for Giggsy. Arsenal have 5 strikers now, and managed without a problem at the end of last season when they had injuries, yet we struggled when Giggs was out, when Beckham was out, when Ruud was out.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>I think last years squad we better than 99 on all areas except defending. This year will be even better. The difference between 99 and now is that the clubs around us have gotten better.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree. If we suffer injuries in areas such as left-back, the wings and up front, our lack of quality cover will cost us dear. Basically, our back-ups are generally weaker than Arsenal or Liverpool and perhaps several of our CL rivals.
Click to expand...
 
I think we are marginally stronger. None of those who have left were key players last year, Rio should be this year.

I think a key improvement will be in attitude. Our pride has been hurt by a disastrous season (3rd in the league and Euro SF).

Strangely, I think Veron's poor world cup will help us. He is now one of four excellent midfielders rather than 'Mr Undroppable'. After Butt's world cup performances, Fergie can play any two from Butt, Keane, Scholes and Veron without worrying about his (Fergie's) pride. Selection will be form.

A fourth striker is highly desirable but, I hope, not essential.
 
Originally posted by lchk:
<strong>

I disagree. If we suffer injuries in areas such as left-back, the wings and up front, our lack of quality cover will cost us dear. Basically, our back-ups are generally weaker than Arsenal or Liverpool and perhaps several of our CL rivals.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, this is irrelevant really. If Liverpool field their first team reserves they will lose. They did it yesterday and Chester outplayed them so the importance of these players on the outcome isn't that big. It's the strength of the first 11 that is significant. It's the world class players that raise our game not these who fill the spots and rather have a more of these than 20 mediocre internationals and 2 WC players.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>

Well, this is irrelevant really. If Liverpool field their first team reserves they will lose. They did it yesterday and Chester outplayed them so the importance of these players on the outcome isn't that big. It's the strength of the first 11 that is significant. It's the world class players that raise our game not these who fill the spots and rather have a more of these than 20 mediocre internationals and 2 WC players.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How is it irrelevant? Injuries are bound to happen so a quality back-up who can slot in with a minimum of fuss is essential.

Please don't cite the chester game as a valid reason for your argument - we are talking about back-up in case of injuries, suspensions etc not replacing the whole team.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by lchk:
<strong>

How is it irrelevant? Injuries are bound to happen so a quality back-up who can slot in with a minimum of fuss is essential.

Please don't cite the chester game as a valid reason for your argument - we are talking about back-up in case of injuries, suspensions etc not replacing the whole team.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it's all a question of getting max out of the resources we have. You can have 3 players on the payroll for 20k - 30k / week or a world class player for 60 whp plays and adds value. Doesn't seem intelligent to spend resources on something just because we may get long term injuries on the majority of our key players when that could be spent to actually improve the first 11 and thus add value that will help us win the title. Spending big on back-ups just in case isn't smart IMO. With the quality we have can compensate a loss for a short while.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>

Well, it's all a question of getting max out of the resources we have. You can have 3 players on the payroll for 20k - 30k / week or a world class player for 60 whp plays and adds value. Doesn't seem intelligent to spend resources on something just because we may get long term injuries on the majority of our key players when that could be spent to actually improve the first 11 and thus add value that will help us win the title. Spending big on back-ups just in case isn't smart IMO. With the quality we have can compensate a loss for a short while.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its a widely held view that our strength in depth has been a key to our success, and something which our rivals have tried to emulate, and have now taken over us in.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
Its a widely held view that our strength in depth has been a key to our success, and something which our rivals have tried to emulate, and have now taken over us in.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmmm, we have more excellent player than any other team. This could be seen as the strength in depth that has brought us success.

Having 2 world class players and 18 on the payroll who are mediocre internationals who you can circulate without it having an effect doesn't necessarily mean you will get success and this is wrong thinking IMO. Average players will remain average and they can't lift you so why bother. Most businesses cut costs by outsourcing and focus on the best parts of their organization. Same thing should apply to a team, concentrate on the vital parts only and leave the irrelevant shite to others.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by An Extremely Boring Man:
<strong>

But is it luck? Is it a coincidence that teams like Liverpool and Tottenham seem to struggle with injuries all the time, while us and Arsenal don't in the same degree?</strong><hr></blockquote>

To say Arsenal didn't have injury problem is a joke. They seldom started with their first eleven last season. Seaman, Dixon, Keown, Adams, A.Cole, Pires, Lunjberg, Jeffers, Van Bronhost, Henry.... all have been out injured for a period of time. At one time they lost half of their starting 11 but still beat Newcastle in FA Cup. At another time they beat us in Old Trafford with a team that didn't include Pires, Henry and Berkamp. Why they can cope with it and still won the league there is only one reason: They have the depth of squad to deal with even a serious injury crisis. But do we really have the depth of squad to survive an injury crisis now, it is a big doubt.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>

Hmmm, we have more excellent player than any other team. This could be seen as the strength in depth that has brought us success.

Having 2 world class players and 18 on the payroll who are mediocre internationals who you can circulate without it having an effect doesn't necessarily mean you will get success and this is wrong thinking IMO. Average players will remain average and they can't lift you so why bother. Most businesses cut costs by outsourcing and focus on the best parts of their organization. Same thing should apply to a team, concentrate on the vital parts only and leave the irrelevant shite to others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A team is only as strong as its weakest link. If we field Phil Neville, they will attack down that flank. Your analogy doesn't work, especially since it doesn't pay attention to the common occurence of injuries. If Henry is injured, they still have Bergkamp, Wiltord, Kanu and Jeffers.

You also need competition for places to keep players performing to their best - Giggs being a case in point.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Neil Thomson:
<strong>
A team is only as strong as its weakest link. If we field Phil Neville, they will attack down that flank. Your analogy doesn't work, especially since it doesn't pay attention to the common occurence of injuries. If Henry is injured, they still have Bergkamp, Wiltord, Kanu and Jeffers.

You also need competition for places to keep players performing to their best - Giggs being a case in point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Fair does, but the more foreign talent we get in the less it will develop our own youngesters. And if they can do the job equally as well I would prefer the one from within. If you buy players they have to actually bring something to the team, what has been happening is managers buying for the sake of buying. I am strongly against this, everything brought in must be better than what we have. Then they can compete for places and stay hungry. But buying players to sit on the bench just in case is wrong, negative attitude. They will not stay motivated and thus when playing they will not be alert.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by AhmedDimwitson:
<strong>

Well, it's all a question of getting max out of the resources we have. You can have 3 players on the payroll for 20k - 30k / week or a world class player for 60 whp plays and adds value. Doesn't seem intelligent to spend resources on something just because we may get long term injuries on the majority of our key players when that could be spent to actually improve the first 11 and thus add value that will help us win the title. Spending big on back-ups just in case isn't smart IMO. With the quality we have can compensate a loss for a short while.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Who says back-up players have to be expensive? There a lot of relatively cheap and good players available eg escude. Efforts should be spent on improving the first team AND the squad as a whole.
Are you certain that we can compensate with losses in certain positions?

What if Giggs is out? Silvestre? RVN? These are the areas where we have a lack of cover and needs addressing. Our current suqad players just aren't good enough to compensate.
Click to expand...
 
We are thin at the back and at the front. We do have some promising players comming through but if they dont get match experience it would be difficult to just throw them in and see if they sink or swim. We certainly need more cover at the back as I dont think Larry will last the season as 1st choice and I cant see us winning the CL with LB at the heart of our defense. Rio cant do everything!
 
I repeat. We're not as strong now as we were in 99 in depth. Injuries do happen, you have to have a squad deep enough to cope.
 
The point is are we as strong "in depth" as we were and the answer is no. The players who have left starting with Cole through to Yorke etc have not been replaced. I do not regard Forlan as anywhere near an adequate replacement for Cole or even Yorke. The loss of Irwin, who admittedly was past his best last season, has not been addressed. Unfortunatley we've had a few injuries,Gary, Rio, Scholes and now Wes. The lack of depth is immediatley apparent and the season has hardly started ! If either Ruud or Ole were to be injured we'd have a real problem. The signing of Rio was great but was Fergie told beforehand that there would be no more money for others. If he was it must have been a huge dilemma because we needed probably three or four new faces to not only replace those who have left but to generally give us the necessary depth which is so obviously needed. Then again Fergie may have thought differently.
 
Originally posted by Julian Denny:
<strong>The point is are we as strong "in depth" as we were and the answer is no. The players who have left starting with Cole through to Yorke etc have not been replaced. I do not regard Forlan as anywhere near an adequate replacement for Cole or even Yorke. The loss of Irwin, who admittedly was past his best last season, has not been addressed. Unfortunatley we've had a few injuries,Gary, Rio, Scholes and now Wes. The lack of depth is immediatley apparent and the season has hardly started ! If either Ruud or Ole were to be injured we'd have a real problem. The signing of Rio was great but was Fergie told beforehand that there would be no more money for others. If he was it must have been a huge dilemma because we needed probably three or four new faces to not only replace those who have left but to generally give us the necessary depth which is so obviously needed. Then again Fergie may have thought differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's okay - some folks believe rio is all we needed and the cups and titles will just waltz back to our trophy room ;)

Any suggestions that we need a few more faces would result in a lynch mob ;)
Click to expand...
 
We need three more players. A keeper (If Barthez reamains injured), Escude and a striker. A fifth who should be a defender only if Brown is ruled out for long. Then we will really be complete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.