Our 99/00 team played better imo.
How would the treble winning team fare in this season?
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
And despite that Schmeichel is clear of De Gea. And I wouldn't scoff at a midfield trio of Scholes, Keane and Beckham. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
I think Newcastle being third actually proves the point of how effective systems have become in the modern game. Look at the talent at Liverpool and Chelsea that Howe has leapfrogged in a single season.
There is definitely no argument from me (or anyone else I can see) about the quality of those players. I would love to have seen that midfield trio. And can you imagine Giggs coming up in the modern-day game? He’d likely be an inside forward drifting in from the right with far less defensive responsibilities than he had throughout his career.
Given time to adapt with a stronger (and less top-heavy) squad, they would run riot.
All sports are throwing money at trying to improve but the reality of humans is that improvements are tiny and take a really long time. Even in the most dedicated individuals. We see this much clearer in individual sports.
Agree on squad size and three man midfields.
But folk in here are talking like this is some Terminator 2 type scenario. Today's players being these far advanced robots who would make mincemeat of the old models.
Eriksen and Casemiro would run over Keane and Scholes. Stam would struggle.
Crazy things to hear.
Last edited:
One way to look at it. But United have gone above those teams too despite barely having a defined style of play. Purely by signings better players we leapfrogged those sides. Although Chelsea signing 900 players mid season had a large part to play in their demise.
Not even sure Newcastle have a defined style. They spent the first half of the season shithousing their way through games, relying on set pieces, time wasting etc. then after the cup final developed a fast counter style.
The treble team in this era would be right up there with City.
I don't think we have a single player that would get in that team and we are currently 4th. Hahahaha.
I don't think we have a single player that would get in that team and we are currently 4th. Hahahaha.
Aside from the statistics that show differently.
Give me a link that shows the 1999 statistics and today's.
Yeah, I don’t think they’d struggle at all. I’m just saying that dismissing the fact that 99 side played in a league that ran on average 1km less per player is kinda wild.
And also that City’s squad is considerably stronger than anything SAF ever had access to, or had to contend with.
But back then we struggled Vs pressing teams, it was a problem for us but we didn't have the replacements.
The treble players are clearly a cut above the current crop. But… the current side are 19 points off the pace. There’s a pretty huge gulf to fit “better than 22/23 United but not as good as 22/23 City” into.
‘99 United and ‘23 City are pretty even matched in terms of best 11. But City’s squad is far stronger.
A very good question. The 98/99 side definitely wouldn't steamroll through this league this season, but we would be right up there with City and I'd give us the edge, a slight but real edge, over this City side.
Looking at our XI v City's XI only Haaland would clearly walk into the United 98/99 side. De Bruyne might get it over Scholes, but maybe not. Apart from that you look at the sides up and down starting with the keeper, the back line, midfield and the front line and man for man we're the better side. However, City are the more cohesive side. I'm not sure how many posters here were alive in 98/99 but for those who weren't you have to know that we won a bunch of matches with the proverbial skin of our teeth. We were completely dominated in the CL Final but two insane corner kick goals in stoppage time won eternal glory in the annals of incredible finishes. The insane FA Cup semifinal. Go back over the results in the league and you'll a lot of narrow wins.
While United 98/99 indisputably had the better players, man for man (apart from Haaland over any of our forwards), City 22/23 is the more cohesive side.
Looking at our XI v City's XI only Haaland would clearly walk into the United 98/99 side. De Bruyne might get it over Scholes, but maybe not. Apart from that you look at the sides up and down starting with the keeper, the back line, midfield and the front line and man for man we're the better side. However, City are the more cohesive side. I'm not sure how many posters here were alive in 98/99 but for those who weren't you have to know that we won a bunch of matches with the proverbial skin of our teeth. We were completely dominated in the CL Final but two insane corner kick goals in stoppage time won eternal glory in the annals of incredible finishes. The insane FA Cup semifinal. Go back over the results in the league and you'll a lot of narrow wins.
While United 98/99 indisputably had the better players, man for man (apart from Haaland over any of our forwards), City 22/23 is the more cohesive side.
Where has that 1k stat come from. I didn't think this stuff was measured in the 90's. Or the stat for current football.
OK Forrest Gimp
Completely agree, half of the treble winning side would walk into any side in the league this season
I see it fairly similarly. I do think we may have become desensitised to how good this City side are. Their team against us recently was
Haaland / de Bruyne
Grealish / Gundugan / Mahrez
Rodri / Stones
Ake / Dias / Walker
Ederson
I’d rather watch the treble winners. Or the Invincibles. Or even Liverpool’s PL winners. But none of them could choke the life out of a league over 38 games like the current City side. I don’t think any of those sides would beat City with Haaland up front. It’s as close to a cheat code as you can get.
Last edited:
They did.
But if you can't think beyond "trophies Erneh" then such a statement is bewildering.
Sorry for the confusion I was responding to this…
You seemed to indicate that running 11km less than the opposition is not statistically significant. I disagree. As does ETH as shown when he made your squad run the 14km differential in their next training session.
All the available stats indicate that players are running more, both in total distance and number of sprints per game. But you don’t need stats to know that, it’s pretty obvious from watching games.
Could the Treble team adapt to deal with with being pressed most weeks and possibly developing a counter-press of their own? Almost certainly. But that (as far as I can tell) isn’t the question.
"Increased physical demands" is absolute bollocks. You're not talking 70's players having a pint and a cig at half time here. You're talking about athletes at the top of their game. Games were played at 100mph and were a lot more "physical" than they are now, you're equating the fact that players now run more to press with the assumption that the 99 team couldn't run. I'd defy you to find a game where Giggs, Keane, Becks (not Scholes) didn't run their bollocks off. That team in 99 was also one of the hardest working teams we've had in modern times, along with the 94 team.
Some terrible, terrible opinions in this thread.
Some terrible, terrible opinions in this thread.
Schmeichel, Neville, Irwin, Stam, Beckham, Cole, Sheringham, Giggs, Keane, Scholes, Yorke, Solskjaer were total mugs. Who even remembers any of them? They'd be blessed to shine Jack Grealish's hair band.
I actually think our treble winners would have smashed City and won the league. I don't give a feck about extra running in today's games. That team were winners and had a different mentality. Also, Giggs, Scholes, Keane, Cole, and Yorke at their peak would be a match for any team.
I actually think our treble winners would have smashed City and won the league. I don't give a feck about extra running in today's games. That team were winners and had a different mentality. Also, Giggs, Scholes, Keane, Cole, and Yorke at their peak would be a match for any team.
It wasn't myself who talked about the 11km because as far as I can see that stat isn't comparing 99 to now. Isn't it comparing distance covered between two world cups or something? All those saying "the stats prove it" don't actually have the stats.
We're not pressed most weeks either. There are lots of games where we have plenty of space to operate.
Eriksen isn't even currently trusted to finish games such is his conditioning and nobody can convince me this Casemiro is physically better than '99 Keane. So if those two can cope I'm sure peak Keane and Scholes could.
Yeah, fair enough. Once again, I’m not arguing that the team that won the treble isn’t better than a team that is 19 points off of the top spot. I’m not sure anyone is.
Unfortunately they absolutely are.
Ok, I missed this post. I thought the likes of Marwood were responding to straw man arguments that nobody was making. Clearly I was wrong - my apologies.
To be clear, my view is that if the 99 team jumped in a time machine they wouldn't have won the league this season. I do, however, recognise that they are a lot better than the current United team (without or without an adaptation period - the gulf in quality is too wide). And the idea that they'd be in a relegation battle is truly wild.
The game has evolved... it hasn't become an entirely different sport.
Yeah we would do the treble again. With SAF though.
Yep, I see that now. That's crazy. My opinion is certainly closer to yours than it is to that argument, that's for sure.
Other than Schmeichal it's the same team really.
The 'only got 79 points' argument is tilted by the fact that Stam and Schmeichal had bad starts to the 98-99 season, and there were quite a few draws in there. The 99/00 team got 90 points i believe and the following year we got 80 points and lost 3 out of our last 4 games because the title race had been decided in record time.
Varane over Johnsen, maybe. And if we aren't just talking first XI then I'd definitely have Casemiro over Butt. Rashford instead of Blomqvist wouldn't be a downgrade either. Shaw is also a better backup LB than Phil Neville.
An article in the FT.
It wasn't tracked in the 90s, it was from World Cups in 2010 and 2022.
An over 10% increase is huge in football, and distance covered isn't the most important stat. High intensity running is the one, and that's come on arguably even more over the time period we are discussing. About 10 years ago Adidas used to publish some of their player data, a good game performance would see around 10 high intensity sprints. You could get that in the first half alone now.
Giggs and Scholes from that squad were schooling players up until 2010 when their legs had gone. Pretty sure young peak of theirs would be world class still
What do you think footballers today are eating that makes such a difference. Compared to players in '99?
Beckham survived at RM think about that a league where Bale who scored CL winning goals was viewed as a technical liability .. I never got the argument about “Beckham wouldn’t cope in the modern game” if anything he was a CM that was a decade or so ahead of where the premier league was which is why he got played as a right winger. In todays game he’s passing range would be adored my managers like Pep, ETH etc.
I struggle to understand people who think they’d struggle, when Newcastle play Longstaff and Joelinton in midfield every week and slap teams.
The 4-4-2 might be an issue, but to be fair, Yorke would often drop quite deep, and both him and Cole worked fairly hard. A few tweaks here and there and it could definitely work.