I was never the voice of reason or knowledge.
I'm just not intelligent enough to do that, not as intelligent as Joga, Pogue and the like.
I'm just not intelligent enough to do that, not as intelligent as Joga, Pogue and the like.
Sergio Aguero
- Thread starter Tevez
- Start date
- Status
I was pulling your leg, Your alright brwned, just like a younger brother, get on my nerves but deep down your alright!
I am sure there are voices within the club making these exact points but there are counter balancing arguments.
We just sold our highest earning player and we are six million a season better off for not getting Tevez.
Good post. The one thing I would say is that unlike with Veron and Van Nistelrooy, Aguero aged only 21 represents less of a potential risk than the other two, who were older when we signed them. Obviously it remains a risk though, because his value would fall if he didn't perform, but still, it wouldn't fall as much as an older player's would.
You're right though, it's alot of money, especially when you consider wages. But I think a marquee signing is in order, given we've just lost a marquee player (2 if you count Tevez), and have these funds available to us. Aguero fits the talent profile, and the age profile. As does Benzema IMO. Once again, I'm just going to trust Fergie to make the correct decision with this one. If he goes for neither, I won't be displeased.
Why did Veron fail? the main reason was partly to do with Scholes, but also the team being built around Keane. Our style of play did not suit him, add the speed of our league to equation, and he struggled.
Whenever he was the main man in midfield (pre-season against Juve) with a water carrier (Phil Neville), he was absolutely World Class. His one touch passing is probably the best in the world, but players like Ruud could not take advantage, as he seemed to lose pace as seasons went on.
A player like Benzema would have thrived on Veron's through-balls. Veron in this team would be more influential than any of our current midfielders.
My point being, that certain types of player need the team to be built around them, and i hope Fergie makes the right choices in that respect when buying the much needed attacking players in the transfer window.
Whenever he was the main man in midfield (pre-season against Juve) with a water carrier (Phil Neville), he was absolutely World Class. His one touch passing is probably the best in the world, but players like Ruud could not take advantage, as he seemed to lose pace as seasons went on.
A player like Benzema would have thrived on Veron's through-balls. Veron in this team would be more influential than any of our current midfielders.
My point being, that certain types of player need the team to be built around them, and i hope Fergie makes the right choices in that respect when buying the much needed attacking players in the transfer window.
RVN didn't limit us anymore than any other player imo. I think thats complete nonsense total tripe, he was awesome we played to his strengths and he delivered big time, he certainly never limited us. If you want to go down that road then it would be feasable for someone to say Ronaldo limited us as everybody in the team played for him and sacrifised themselves so he could be the main event i.e. Rooney wide left alot this season and Ronaldo also took every throw in by kick free kick pen etc surely this limited our other players as well or the stages when he shot from 40 yds+ when an easier ball was on i.e. to Rooney in champs league final. Thats how stupid a point it is RVN was awesome and so was Ronaldo but teams were set up to play for both them but imo neither them limited us.
The prices being quoted and the type of player - makes no sense for this transfer to go through.. added with the fact that Athletico do not need the money and have ambitions of doing well in the CL themselves and also the fact that they have mentioned the fact that they have absolutely no interest in selling their player just around 597 times!
I mean seriously? £40M+ for another player who prefers to play behind a leading striker? No thanks.. I would rather we retain the services of Campbell and see who is available next year in hopefully a more sane market..
I mean seriously? £40M+ for another player who prefers to play behind a leading striker? No thanks.. I would rather we retain the services of Campbell and see who is available next year in hopefully a more sane market..
absolutey agree, Veron vs Juve was sensational in that pre-season match and I thought it was going to be his season
also agreed on the importance of being very astute with regards to pinpointing who to build a team around
I really shouldn't have to say this, but I guess that I will have to. It absolutely does not follow that because a player does well for your club, scoring a record number of goals, that he is therefore a good influence on the team, overall. It could certainly be evidence of just that, but it is also quite possible that, as I've said, our reliance on one player of a specific type, in a specific position, is limiting, with respect to the rest of the team.
And I should also point out that, for someone who likes to throw around accusations about others making "stupid" points, that are "complete nonsense" and "total tripe", I'd have expected you to actually go on to make a sound argument. As it is, you've completely misunderstood the main thrust of my own argument, which is evidenced by the fact that you have focused on a comparison with Ronaldo, which doesn't actually address any of the reasons why I saw van Nistelrooy as limiting. So, you haven't really dealt with my argument, at all, except superficially.
My argument is not simply that we relied on van Nistelrooy, because as you have quite rightly said (and I even mentioned myself, but you wouldn't think so), the same could be said of Ronaldo. My argument is that van Nistelrooy limited the way in which we were able to set up as a team, the variation of our passing movements, the flexibility of the forward line (van Nistelrooy could not interchange with others, as can Rooney, Tevez, Ronaldo, etc), and the ability to counter-attack at pace, among other things. That is what is known as a teams philosophy, and it stands to reason that the more flexible a team is; the more able they are to adapt to different circumstances, and to change the way in which they attempt to overcome the various challenges that different teams present, the more successful you are likely to be.
As you've mentioned Ronaldo, I'll continue with that example. Ronaldo is a forward, usually starting out on the right-hand-side, but essentially with a free role. He is able to dribble, he has extraordinary pace and skill — a technical marvel — he can score from anywhere between 5 yards and 40 yards with either foot, he can cross, he can pass, he is a terrific in the air, he is just as effective through the middle, as he is out wide, and he is able to play on the shoulder of the last man and run in behind. You get the picture. He can just about do everything. The only way in which Ronaldo limited us was if he had a poor game, and that's no different to any other player.
That simply cannot be said about van Nistelrooy. Very few of those attributes that I have just mentioned could reasonably be said of van Nistelrooy. It's almost as if you are suggesting that Ronaldo playing through the middle in Europe is no different to if we had used van Nistelrooy, instead. Of course, that would be transparent nonsense, and that is essentially my point. van Nistelrooy, as the focal point of a forward line, limits what the rest of the team can do, where they can pass the ball, and what you needed to do to score goals. Whereas Ronaldo, if being tightly marked, is able to spin in behind a defence, and no matter how good the defender, is able to run away from them, van Nistelrooy was not able to do that, which is limiting, however you look at it. If Ronaldo (or Rooney/Tevez, etc) is not affecting the game in a particular area of the pitch, he is able to switch positions, comfortable in the knowledge that he will find the oppositions weakness, eventually. Again, that cannot be said of van Nistelrooy.
So my argument is about attributes, not simply about how much we may, or may not, have relied on a particular player. The forward line in the last few years has been markedly different to that of the years prior to that. Rather than a focal point, around which all else had to be built, we have seen a front 3/4 who were all able to drop off, positioning themselves between the lines of the back four and midfield, which creates a real problem for opposition.They could all dribble with the ball, were all comfortable interchanging positions, making them extremely difficult to mark, and all possessed a relative amount of pace, meaning that we were able to kill teams once gain on the counter attack. They were all essentially footballers, and that is the modern way.
None of this should be seen as an attack on van Nistelrooy, and it certainly shouldn't be seen as me blaming him for all of our problems during his time at the club. Attack the arguments that I am making, not those that wish to reply to, even though I haven't made them.
But surely it's fair to say that the present system allowing Ronaldo to float and swap positions is one that was developed to get him in threatening positions, and is relatively new? Now that he's gone, we will see things change, because that system was so reliant on him, and trying to get him into the game. While Saha had good movement, the interchangeability of the front three only became prevalent the summer before last when we began to build the team around Ronaldo, and bought Tevez.
Every player 'limits' the system that a team plays, to some extent. Ronaldo, to use the example you mentioned, forced us to use defensively sound players like Park and Rooney to cover the multitude of sins he was happy to leave behind him in order to keep him in or around the opponents' area. Also, his refusal/inability to play as anything like a traditional winger(beating his man/getting crosses in) in his last two seasons shaped the way we lined up too. How often were we working the ball wide to create opportunities? Not as often as we have traditionally, certainly.
While Van Nistelrooy was here we simply didn't have the players to play the system we do now. There was a more static front line because of Ruud's abilities, the quality of the players behind him, and also because young players like Rooney and Ronaldo were very much still learning the game. They couldn't be expected to show the sort of tactical awareness that we have seen from them in the last couple of seasons.
I realise that you aren't having a go at Ruud, but what you have to remember is that, prior to him signing, we had Cole Yorke and Sheringham and Solskjaer. That used a front man(Cole/Ole) with a withdrawn striker(Yorke/Sheringham). Neither of those positions was particularly fluid, and in fact it was often left to the midfield to break the deadlock when the front two were having an off-day. To say that he prevented us from playing that way ignores the fact that we had shown no aptitude/desire to play that way prior to his arrival.
I just don't agree that Van Nistelrooy limited us, and stopped us playing a version of how we play now. We simply didn't have the players/tactical awareness to do that, and I think it is pretty obvious that when he came in, his(and Veron's) arrival heralded an immediate change in the system we played. That was because, to my mind at least, of our failures in Europe, and because we simply weren't taking enough chances when they came our way in those big European games.
I do agree he did limit us in his final two seasons (whether this was because of the injury, the fact that he'd put in a transfer request and didn't have his heart in it, or a combo of both). His general movement outside of the box was quite poor, and he didn't seem to be linking up with team-mates so well.
But I think you're being a bit harsh on him for the first three seasons. Yes, he could only play in that one position, but his movement and general team-play was good enough that he wasn't needed to play anywhere else or do different jobs. I don't think he really limited us during those seasons anymore than Ronaldo's lack of tracking back (hence the need for Park/Hargreaves and often Rooney on the wing) did in the last few. It was the way we played, and the increasingly poor quality players around him, that ultimately limited the team as a whole.
Well said this was the point I was trying to get over, I didn't put it over as well. I understand exactly what you were saying Jogo I just think its totally flawed abot RVN. Beckham limited us with his inability to beat a man but he was unbelievable for us and him and Nevile built up a great partnership as Nevile did the overlapping allowing Beckham space and time for cross as the defender generally had to cover Neviles run.
It is relatively new, but I haven't argued that everything was fantastic before van Nistelrooy was signed, or after he left. And you'll also recall that, despite having a terrific record in Europe over the last 10-15 years (the number of Quarter and Semi Finals that we have reached), we had only been to one final in that time, prior to the last 2 seasons. Clearly, despite dominating the Premier League, at the very highest level, we were never quite good enough. Football, itself, has also changed in the last 5-10 years. How many van Nistelrooy type players are there around the world, now? Very few, which suggests that that type of player is a dying breed.
And I have to slightly disagree about Saha. The two seasons that we were at our best, recently, were the 06/07 and 07/08 seasons. Saha is certainly more of a traditional center-forward than either Rooney, Ronaldo, or Tevez, but he also had a number of very different attributes to van Nistelrooy. One of the reasons that we won the league in 06/07, besides the signing of Carrick (his partnership in the center of midfield with Scholes meant that we were able to control games — particularly away from home — once again), the defensive stability, and the emergence of Rooney and Ronaldo, was the outlet that Saha provided. He added both athleticism and dynamism to our attack in that season, which hasn't been replaced.
Saha could come short for the ball, turn, and run at a defence, but he was also a fantastic option over the top, as well. One thing that is underestimated about Saha, in my opinion, was his role in the away games in that season. Previously, with van Nistelrooy as the leading striker — the focal point of the attack — any ball played out of defence, particularly when we were under pressure and defending in numbers, needed to be almost perfect, or else the ball was essentially given away, and the opposition were straight back on the offensive. But with Saha, the ball could be played in to an area — usually down the channels — with much less accuracy (which is often forced upon you, in an effort to clear the ball), and he was fantastic at out-sprinting the defenders and maintaining possession, which allowed the rest of the team to make up the ground and join him in attack.
He would also often pick up the ball on the left or the right, a la Henry, and travel with it right in to the heart of the opposition defence. So, he was more than capable of operating in a fluid, interchangeable forward line.
That's true, but only trivially so, in my opinion. Very few players with Ronaldo's ability are either expected, or can be trusted, to perform a defensive role (as well as their "normal" role). But it is hardly a consequence of Ronaldo, himself, that Sir Alex wanted his forwards to do more for the team. That is a consequence of the modern fullback, and their propensity to attack, arriving late and unmarked in the final third.
So I suppose in that sense Ronaldo did limit the team, but I'd be interested to hear of another player with a similar level of ability that could be trusted with that role? Rooney, being English, is one, but I can think of very few foreign players. And it's hardly a fair comparison, because there were/are plenty of strikers in the world that could/can score goals at a similar rate to van Nistelrooy, but who don't limit a team in the way that he did — in my opinion, of course.
I'm not sure that I understand your point about Ronaldo refusing "to play as anything like a traditional winger". Who says? Clearly that isn't what the coaches wanted, and I agree with them, especially considering that we had Rooney and Tevez as the players most likely to get on the end of a Ronaldo cross.
All true, of course, but I do think that (some of) you are equating the final few years of van Nistelrooy's time at the club, when the team was essentially a confused mess, with the years prior to that, when Roy Keane was still largely in his prime, along with Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, etc, etc. Those players certainly weren't suited to the system that we currently use, but the vast majority were every bit as good as the players that we have at this moment in time. I get the sense that, in an attempt to absolve van Nistelrooy of any blame, some of you are downplaying the quality of the team that we had when he arrived.
I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to show? Clearly Sir Alex is at fault for not creating teams that were good enough to reach more Champions league Finals, though I believe that his record is largely excellent. The dominant criticism, prior to the last few years, is that we were far too naive, both in our defending, and in the crucial moments where you need players with the technical qualities, as well as the clever movement, to take advantage of the slightest opening.
I admire Sir Alex for his determination to find the right formula in Europe, particularly when you consider where we started in the early nineties, after the European ban. But, however you frame it, van Nistelrooy's time at the club can only be considered as largely a failure. That is the fault of everyone at the club, obviously, but it's no good attempting to defend everyone that we happen to admire, and piling all of the blame on to what were mainly fringe players at that time. That would be totally disingenuous, as well as inaccurate.
That we had shown little or no desire to create a modern, fluid, interchangeable forward line before — which is something that I'd dispute, as Yorke, Cole, Solskjaer, Sheringham, Cantona, etc, etc, were all capable of involving themselves in the build up, to varying degrees, although such a system was not really needed at that time, so I take your point — is of little relevance, unless I'm missing something? How does that help to explain van Nistelrooy's limitations?
That's true, but the very fact that it clearly didn't work suggests that it points more to what I have been saying — something more fundamental. At that time, the first eleven consisted of, among others, Gary Neville, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Veron, Beckham, and van Nistelrooy, all pretty much in their prime. The lack of success clearly points to a problem, and likely more than one. If van Nistelrooy didn't limit us in any way, something clearly did, so what was it? And I just don't accept that the current side is that much more talented than the side that we had at that time, or that Ronaldo made all of the difference.
Doesn't saying that we "didn't have the players/tactical awareness to do that" also essentially make my point for me? That other players were also part of the problem is irrelevant.
Ok can we get back to topic, ineresting read BTW.
that was a good read Joga Bonito, good read.
The key to our success of the last 3 seasons is the defence, the attack has been getting worse as we've moved away from a straight forward 442 with Rooney/Saha upfront to whatever we decide to play from one week to the next currently, Ruud would not have prevented us winning the trophies we have were he here
I'd basically agree with that Moz.
We've relied on a couple of outstanding players to give us bite. Otherwise we've just been very, very solid.
There's an opportunity now to give more balance to the team in attack.
We've relied on a couple of outstanding players to give us bite. Otherwise we've just been very, very solid.
There's an opportunity now to give more balance to the team in attack.
That underpins what I'm saying throughout this-football has and was changing, and that's what forced us to try to move towards the more continental approach of 5 in the midfield. What Ruud does/did is arguably the hardest thing to do in football, score goals. There are very few who come close to being as prolific as he was at his peak. But as you say, the game's changing, and that's reflected by the number of 'split-strikers' in the game at the moment.
Agreed. He was a cracking player for us. But he was an out-and-out striker who ran the channels well and was willing to get involved in the build up rather than being truly interchangeable as we've expected the last couple of years.
That's fair, but it doesn't mean he doesn't limit you. For example, our right back the last couple of seasons has been either Brown or O'Shea, defensive-minded full-backs. That's because Ronaldo being there meant we had to cut our cloth accordingly behind him. Similarly it's instructive to see how often Ronaldo was moved to the left when Rafael played at right back.
I'm not sure there are plenty of players who score as many as RVN, and don't 'limit' the team.
As for the Ronaldo thing (and I said refusal/inability), clearly some of it was down to instructions. But while he wasn't hugging the touchline, he was still the width on the right side. But I'd bet that SAF wasn't telling him not to go past his man for most of last season. How often was he creating from crosses? Not very, is the simple answer, because he was cutting inside more often than not.
Not at all. It was a fantastic team (I'm just not sure it was as tactically flexible as the ones subsequent-we tended to stick to quite a rigid 442), but as you've pointed out, it wasn't as successful in Europe as it ought to have been. That's why we made the decision to change the way we played. And our lack of success after of course had something to do with Ruud, but in my opinion it also reflected the difficulties we had playing 'the European way' and the players that became part of the squad as the team transitioned.
Agreed. Though I would say we received equal criticism for not keeping the ball well in Europe. But defending isn't limited to the back five. We had an extremely attacking midfield, which meant something had to give in Europe. It isn't a case of 'blaming fringe players' rather accepting that the team we had wasn't ideally suited to European football at the time.
Calling his time a failure is a bit harsh. But I'm not seeking to absolve him of any blame for (relative) underachievement. Simply pointing out that he did what he could as the player he was, and our failures were as much based on our system as the personnel. This is all just a response to your comment that Ruud's signing 'set us back years'.
Of course they were excellent players, and got involved. But they were strikers, and there was a far more rigid formation in place in their times than there is now.
Yep, we had an excellent team. But the system simply wasn't a fit for Europe at the time. IMO, of course. That's why we sought to change, and of course, that brought with it it's own difficulties.
Now, as much as I'm enjoying this, I think we're taking these nice folks' thread off-topic, so can I suggest a truce(or after your reply if you prefer)?
2003–04: F = 64, A = 35, GD = +29
2004–05: F = 58, A = 26, GD = +32
2005–06: F = 72, A = 34, GD = +38
2006–07: F = 83, A = 27, GD = +56
2007–08: F = 80, A = 22, GD = +58
2008–09: F = 68, A = 24, GD = +44
So, what you say is strictly true, but isn't really a fair reflection of the two years prior to the season that has just finished. And the idea that we scored more goals using a less flexible system is clearly false, at least in what could reasonably be described as the modern era. The change came, in my opinion, in the second half of the 05/06 season, when Saha replaced the largely injured van Nistelrooy, and surprisingly, Giggs and O'Shea were the two central midfielders, due to Scholes' eye injury. The year after that, van Nistelrooy had left, Carrick had arrived, and we had become a very different team. We went on a long unbeaten run in the second half of the 05/06 season, despite the fact that we had little chance of winning the league. That was clearly in preparation for the 06/07 assault on the league title.
Why we went from scoring 80+ (06/07, 07/08), to the late 60's (08/09), is not entirely clear, although, if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that the run of not conceding, while clearly brilliant, had a net negative effect on the team. It came right in the middle of the season, after our customary slow start, where we always appear to have more injuries than we should have. In many of the games during that run, we appeared to be more interested in preserving the record, than going on to score a second or third, etc. And once the run was over, it was too late, at that point, to suddenly find another gear. You could therefore say that run without conceding set the pattern for the entire season.
There are likely other factors, of course, but it's impossible to tell how much of an impact the loss of Carlos Queiroz had, with only one season to go on.
As to whether we would have won what we have with van Nistelrooy at the club, it is not even worth speculating. Nobody knows, and despite having excellent players in his first 3/4 years at the club, we were largely unsuccessful. Again, that's hardly all his fault, but he cannot escape all blame, regardless of how many goals that he scored for the club.
Joga your standard of posts are well above the normal average poster and really well thought out but it does come across that you just didnt rate RVN. And it seems like you have a gripe against him (I may be wrong). RVN was awesome for utd and i think his movement wasnt as bad as people are making out. He was one of the few who imo can be blameless for being unsuccessful, his goalscoring rate for Utd and throughtout his career was/is nothing short of unbelivable.
You can make arguments both for and against Nistelrooy:
For: it is no secret that the team we had for a couple of seasons in Nistelrooy's prime was among the weakest we have ever had in the last 15 years - and frequently, only Nistelrooys goalscoring abilities kept us in the game. That's impossible to deny.
Against: You can also claim that we played a football that were suited for Nistelrooy and that maybe it always weren't the best for the team. Quite a few of our players lifted their game after Nistelrooy left. We can only hope that this is something that will happen again no that Ronaldo has left. For no matter how you look at it - we have 4-5 players who clearly can play a lot better than they did last season (Berbatov, Nani, Scholes - even Rooney is capable of scoring a lot more goals)
For: it is no secret that the team we had for a couple of seasons in Nistelrooy's prime was among the weakest we have ever had in the last 15 years - and frequently, only Nistelrooys goalscoring abilities kept us in the game. That's impossible to deny.
Against: You can also claim that we played a football that were suited for Nistelrooy and that maybe it always weren't the best for the team. Quite a few of our players lifted their game after Nistelrooy left. We can only hope that this is something that will happen again no that Ronaldo has left. For no matter how you look at it - we have 4-5 players who clearly can play a lot better than they did last season (Berbatov, Nani, Scholes - even Rooney is capable of scoring a lot more goals)
In Ruuds first season we scored 87 goals but ultimately lost the title due to selling Stam, we conceded 45 goals. In his second season we scored 74 goals and won the title after buying Rio for the defence. In the close season we sold Beckham and Veron and not long into the season we lost Ole for 3 years to injury. Saying Ruud had a good team around him for 3/4 years is just wrong.
I didn't say we scored more playing less flexible football, I said the attack was better, by that I mean the football was better, the team work, the movement. By the champions league final this year we'd become a team where 10 men are trying to feed one, every bit as bad as how you imagine we played with Ruud in the side
Alright, time to turn our attentions
Aguero is the only one left
come on Kun, join us
come on Kun, join us
Yalla.
I reckon he'll be a United player in the morning.
Huntelaar anyone?
If he goes to, say, Liverpool for example, people will actually die
feckin love RedcafeJust 7 pages
70 to go
Come on muppets
70 to go
Come on muppets
This is no bullshit - My mate has confirmed that it was Aguero and not Benzema whom he spotted in a nice Range Rover Sport on his way to Bupa, Whalley Range.
Cocks out!
Cocks out!
Benzema was a massive smokescreen. We laid the trap, Madrid fell straight into it and now we move to our primary target
Yeah definitely. Aguero is a left footed (and slightly better) version of tevez. He's a brilliant player but I don't want him, not because he's an argie (and therefore prone to betrayal) but because he plays in the same position as Rooney. If those two played upfront, we'd be limited, our wingers couldn't cross and we'd become predictable.
My Cock has found a plaaaaceeee.
Something needs to shoot out of my cock soon. Since it won't be Karim Benzemen, Spermio Agüero will have to do. I'm walking around with balls the size of oranges here.
he will only cost like £10m - £15m, hardly a massive signing
Aguero will cost over £40m
now where is the Aguerometer
- Status