Mate. This explains a lot.
'99 must have been a pisser for you. Your favourite team was going to win it and then up pops your second favourite and steals your thunder.
Hargreaves vs. Carrick, Feadingseagulls vs. Noodle, Chief (Bayern Fan!) vs. Logic
- Thread starter anything about now
- Start date
- Status
Mate. This explains a lot.
'99 must have been a pisser for you. Your favourite team was going to win it and then up pops your second favourite and steals your thunder.
Maybe for a fool like you.Mate. This explains a lot.
'99 must have been a pisser for you. Your favourite team was going to win it and then up pops your second favourite and steals your thunder.
I said United was my second team. I never said any where I supported it any less than I support Bayern. Besides, I wanted Fergie to lift that European cup real bad. So 99 was pretty satisfying.
I've got he Milan-United match on my PC and I've just watched it again. The real problem was Seedorf running off Fletcher, Heinze going walkabout at leftback and Vidic looking like he was running through treacle. Carrick's passing could have been better, but he didn't actually handle Kaka too badly when the two came up against each other.
Fletcher, Scholes and Carrick were occupied with Milan's midfield 3 and Kaka was actually one of their strikers. He found most of his space because of Heinze's suicidal defending and Vidic's lack of sharpness, rather than Carrick's inability to defend. If you watch the game again, Kaka (and indeed Oddo) did most of their work in the area of the pitch that Heinze should have been. That's where Milan won the game.
The other problem was how deep our midfield was playing and how much of a gap there was between them and the wingers, and between the wingers and Rooney. Whenever Ronaldo got the ball he had nobody to pass to, and judging by his generally selfish attitude during the match he probably wouldn't have passed even if he an option to. Gattuso ultimately had an easy job marking him out of the game as a result.
The 4-3-3 we played meant our midfield got pinned back, and we couldn't break out of our own half with any numbers. Hargreaves wouldn't have helped too much against Kaka imo. He may have had a better time against Seedorf than Fletcher did, but he wouldn't have been able to mark both Seedorf and Kaka at the same time. Especially since Kaka was playing up against our defence rather than our midfield. And Hargreaves' lack of passing ability obviously wouldn't have helped us relieve the pressure on the counter attack.
The thing that really killed us off on the night was the shite formation and 2 out of our 4 defenders barely showing up. 4-4-2 and and full defensive contingent is what we really needed, not Owen Hargreaves.
Fletcher, Scholes and Carrick were occupied with Milan's midfield 3 and Kaka was actually one of their strikers. He found most of his space because of Heinze's suicidal defending and Vidic's lack of sharpness, rather than Carrick's inability to defend. If you watch the game again, Kaka (and indeed Oddo) did most of their work in the area of the pitch that Heinze should have been. That's where Milan won the game.
The other problem was how deep our midfield was playing and how much of a gap there was between them and the wingers, and between the wingers and Rooney. Whenever Ronaldo got the ball he had nobody to pass to, and judging by his generally selfish attitude during the match he probably wouldn't have passed even if he an option to. Gattuso ultimately had an easy job marking him out of the game as a result.
The 4-3-3 we played meant our midfield got pinned back, and we couldn't break out of our own half with any numbers. Hargreaves wouldn't have helped too much against Kaka imo. He may have had a better time against Seedorf than Fletcher did, but he wouldn't have been able to mark both Seedorf and Kaka at the same time. Especially since Kaka was playing up against our defence rather than our midfield. And Hargreaves' lack of passing ability obviously wouldn't have helped us relieve the pressure on the counter attack.
The thing that really killed us off on the night was the shite formation and 2 out of our 4 defenders barely showing up. 4-4-2 and and full defensive contingent is what we really needed, not Owen Hargreaves.
Maybe for a fool like you.
I said United was my second team. I never said any where I supported it any less than I support Bayern. Besides, I wanted Fergie to lift that European cup real bad. So 99 was pretty satisfying.
Yes you're right I am pretty stupid. My mistake. When you said that United were you're second I thought that meant that Bayern we're your first team and that United came in the place behind that.
So did you support Bayern first and then decide to support United as well?
Do you support them equally?
You only wanted us to win in '99 for Fergie?
I know, all stupid questions but you already had me pegged so I may as well keep going.
Maybe for a fool like you.
I said United was my second team. I never said any where I supported it any less than I support Bayern. Besides, I wanted Fergie to lift that European cup real bad. So 99 was pretty satisfying.
So second now means not second?
You might want to save the insults for a time when you aren't making a total idiot out of yourself. That means you're going to want to avoid insulting anyone for the forseeable future.
Back on topic; good post, I'd agree with that analysis.
Nice one Ralphie! Just at the time I was getting bored of my PhD.
Must get it finished, must get it finished!
So who is your first team then?
Must be Bayern United, duh
Us academics sure are dumb.
Red Indian etc. : Pwned.
whats wrong with supporting two teams?? i support both Bayern and United. 99 was a great year for me...i still think that Bayern deserved it more than United, but then again United were playing without Keane and Scholes so it's a tricky one. but United ended up winning a historic treble which is why i came to the conclusion that the right thing happened. the thing is for me supporting Bayern came from the fact that im a Germany supporter and the only German team that seems to represent Germany well in Europe is Bayern...while i support United mainly because of my dad (who started supporting them back in 85) but my love for United grew...it's difficult to say which team is my first team...i like both i guess
Cant believe you lot are still analysing the Milan game, you are just getting to the point where you are analysing it so much that your points are just too detalied are there is no simple argument!!!
I said its my second team. As in the second side I support. There is nothing in that statement suggesting I love Bayern more than Manchester or vice versa. So you think twice. Before talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.
It doesn't. You were sadly mistaken. So be sure about what you are saying before jumping to conclusions. Because you might offend someone with out reason.
I was born in Germany. My father was a Bayern supporter and I followed suit. Then in the, mid 80's, when my family had relocated to Africa, I saw Robson play at the world cup. I think was about 7. I also saw Fergie manage a side at that world cup. I was hooked on both. I decided I'd support Robson's club. Luckily for me SAF joined too, later on. Since them I've followed the club religiously, learning much of the club history and following it in any way I could. Then and now.
Pretty much
Yes. He hard worked real hard to rebuild the club & bring it emulate what it was under Busby. While kicking Liverpool "off their fecking perch".
The European cup IMO had to signal that the job of re-awakening a fallen giant was complete.
I think we need to recognise that English is not the chief's 1st language and therefore realise he may not get all the implications of a term chosen for specific reasons.
I'm still trying to work out his intentions in that reply to my question earlier.
Neither. I said I support two sides. Nothing more nothing less.So who is your first team then?
If you'd said "I support two football teams and the other one is Bayern Munich.", then you'd have a leg to stand on. Saying "United are my 2nd team" reads to us as United being your second team. Either you made a grammatical mistake or you're trying to cover your ass, but you have no place on the high ground here.
That Pretty much sums me up too...with a few differences here and there
So who is your first team then?
Reading a later post of his - he is obviously referring to temporal priority.
I support 22 teams in the Premier League.
Like I said - I reckon he's using '2nd' in a purely temporal sense - which for a non-native speaker makes complete sense - it's the primary meaning.
Just posting so I can be part of this legendary thread.
fecking great analysis btw Shotgun Raisin. Heinze...what a scumbag.
fecking great analysis btw Shotgun Raisin. Heinze...what a scumbag.
Bullshit. I wasn't making a speech. So I didnt need to use officious English.
I said this "United (My second team)".
That doesn't mean the same thing as "United are my second team."
I did neither. So if you can't see that, that's your own fecking problem. Not mine. I don't need to justify the way I support the sides I love to people like you.
Can I just say:
GOOD QUESTIONS
which prompted the chief to spell out what he meant.
Kudos fella.
Chief -
How could I possibly have offended you by simply stating that YOU said that United were your second team?
You called me a fool - a term which I, as have others, would advise that you use sparingly. Especially that given my occupation I may take far more offence to than you should from someone questioning why you claim you support two teams.
The rest of your answers are fair enough, I suppose, in your world. Personally I have always supported United and have never thought "Oh I like the look of Ronaldinho, I'll go and support Barca" for example. I believe that once you start 'supporting' a team this little thing called loyalty should kick in and that team should come before all others (without a 'second team', but oh yeah you didn't say that did you?)
How could I possibly have offended you by simply stating that YOU said that United were your second team?
You called me a fool - a term which I, as have others, would advise that you use sparingly. Especially that given my occupation I may take far more offence to than you should from someone questioning why you claim you support two teams.
The rest of your answers are fair enough, I suppose, in your world. Personally I have always supported United and have never thought "Oh I like the look of Ronaldinho, I'll go and support Barca" for example. I believe that once you start 'supporting' a team this little thing called loyalty should kick in and that team should come before all others (without a 'second team', but oh yeah you didn't say that did you?)
I reckon you don't need to be as defensive as that fella - see my posts - you obviously are aware that '2nd' has more than a temporal meaning - but may be wrong in assuming a given expression minimises the 'ranking' aspect.
Ah reason will out eh?
As you stated above I asked that question, to me though it is pretty similar. Personally I don't understand starting out with one team and then changing to another. But then I suppose people get married twice.
Dialectics from a fool like me.
I said this United (my second team), meaning the second side I support. You just jumped to your own dumb conclusion and posted this offensive remark below
" '99 must have been a pisser for you. Your favourite team was going to win it and then up pops your second favourite and steals your thunder.
"You insulted me first. Trying to paint me as a fool. It's only fair I insult you back.
Did I freaking have to?
Do I have to justify myself to the likes of you?
Who are you anyway? That I should pay special attention to making you understand how I support the sides I support. Or how loyal I am to them?
Who are you to judge me anyway? Who gave you such authority? To decide how someone should or shouldn't support a team?
If I was to follow the crap you are suggesting, I wouldn't even support my national side with any hint of pride. Because the side I grew up supporting "should come before all others "
Blimey Chief, as my Liverpool supporting mate always says about Fergie, have you got sand in your vagina?
My original comment was merely aimed at pointing out that supporting two teams in the CL Final must have been a bit weird that's all. It's only my perception of it.
I asked you questions which allowed to put forward your views. I said that they were fair enough in your world and then went on to give my opinion on it.
Why I am not as indigdant and offended as you I can't quite work out?
And just for your info I do put United above my national side. They play in the same country as well. I am also not alone in feeling like this.
My original comment was merely aimed at pointing out that supporting two teams in the CL Final must have been a bit weird that's all. It's only my perception of it.
I asked you questions which allowed to put forward your views. I said that they were fair enough in your world and then went on to give my opinion on it.
Why I am not as indigdant and offended as you I can't quite work out?
And just for your info I do put United above my national side. They play in the same country as well. I am also not alone in feeling like this.
This is some kind of experiment to find out exactly how long it takes to win an argument on Redcafe, isn't it?
No it's not
I would be if I was writing a thesis or an official speech. Or some other official document, where proper English is used. The type with no grammatic, phonetic or structural error. But I was using spoken English. The type people speak. The type that allows people to say "Me shirt was caught in the door" or use slang & still have people understand what they mean.
But on here, to my chagrin, I keep having to spell out every bloody thing I mean when I post. As I'm back in freaking grammar school
It proves you can't win an argument on the caf - but you can make a right pillock of yourself.
In that case, second would definitely mean that Bayern came first.
- Status