Fergie's 4 year theory

Interesting comments don't you think? 4 years max per 'great side'... a few 'great teams' (verm included) have won 3 titles but never 4.

Do you reckon it's possible to keep a side together for longer in the modern game? Clearly Rangers / Celtic and, more recently, Lyon have won 9 and 7 respectively but their leagues were weaker if we're being honest.

Could you see another team winning 3 on the spin?

Think Chelsea are reaping the rewards of their team being together for a few years now. Wenger has only won one at a time and you'd have to admit his 03/04 team should have won more.

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Interesting comments don't you think? 4 years max per 'great side'... a few 'great teams' (verm included) have won 3 titles but never 4.

Do you reckon it's possible to keep a side together for longer in the modern game? Clearly Rangers / Celtic and, more recently, Lyon have won 9 and 7 respectively but their leagues were weaker if we're being honest.

Could you see another team winning 3 on the spin?

Think Chelsea are reaping the rewards of their team being together for a few years now. Wenger has only won one at a time and you'd have to admit his 03/04 team should have won more.

His late 90s side was (even) better.

That side going unbeaten in the league probably didn't do them any favours in the long run. It encouraged both Wenger and the players to be too affected by the media fawning, imo.

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

His late 90s side was (even) better.

That side going unbeaten in the league probably didn't do them any favours in the long run. It encouraged both Wenger and the players to be too affected by the media fawning, imo.

Agree - his 98/99 side were a great side... we did well to win the league that year... who'd have thunk Leeds (again) would have gifted us the title.

Still think the 03/04 side were better but they got into the hype with their "50 not out" T-Shirts...

That 4-2 at the library was a great night.

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Interesting comments don't you think? 4 years max per 'great side'... a few 'great teams' (verm included) have won 3 titles but never 4.

Do you reckon it's possible to keep a side together for longer in the modern game? Clearly Rangers / Celtic and, more recently, Lyon have won 9 and 7 respectively but their leagues were weaker if we're being honest.

Could you see another team winning 3 on the spin?

Think Chelsea are reaping the rewards of their team being together for a few years now. Wenger has only won one at a time and you'd have to admit his 03/04 team should have won more.

Few players play at a league winning level for beyond 4 years. It is a pretty big physical and mental strain.

Lyon have vastly changed their side throughout their title winning seasons. They have got away with winning titles, when they have been changing the players though, due to the lack of competition they had. You'd never get away with it over here.

Originally Posted by Coracao

Few players play at a league winning level for beyond 4 years. It is a pretty big physical and mental strain.

Lyon have vastly changed their side throughout their title winning seasons. They have got away with winning titles, when they have been changing the players though, due to the lack of competition they had.

So we're the only side to win 3 titles on the spin twice? Ever? Goes to show how lucky and great we've been over the last 10 years I suppose.

92-93, 93-94
95-96, 96-97
98-99, 00-01, 01-02
03
06-07, 07-08, 08-09

£#%&!ing brilliant... I hope I never say to a Citeh fan - come back when you've won 18...

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

So we're the only side to win 3 titles on the spin twice? Ever? Goes to show how lucky and great we've been over the last 10 years I suppose.

92-93, 93-94
95-96, 96-97
98-99, 00-01, 01-02
03
06-07, 07-08, 08-09

£#%&!ing brilliant... I hope I never say to a Citeh fan - come back when you've won 18...

Would have been three times if Cantona hadn't have been banned.

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

So we're the only side to win 3 titles on the spin twice? Ever? Goes to show how lucky and great we've been over the last 10 years I suppose.

92-93, 93-94
95-96, 96-97
98-99, 00-01, 01-02
03
06-07, 07-08, 08-09

£#%&!ing brilliant... I hope I never say to a Citeh fan - come back when you've won 18...

You messed up the dates... 99/00 not 01/02.

00/01 we absolutely pissed the league. Beat Arsenal 6-1 in the run-in. Won the league by 10 points after losing the last 3 games.

Then signed van Nistelrooy and Veron....nothing could stop us winning 4 on the trot!

Originally Posted by Coracao

You messed up the dates... 99/00 not 01/02.

00/01 we absolutely pissed the league. Beat Arsenal 6-1 in the run-in. Won the league by 10 points after losing the last 3 games.

Then signed van Nistelrooy and Veron....nothing could stop us winning 4 on the trot!

those were the days. ambition.

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Interesting comments don't you think? 4 years max per 'great side'... a few 'great teams' (verm included) have won 3 titles but never 4.

Do you reckon it's possible to keep a side together for longer in the modern game? Clearly Rangers / Celtic and, more recently, Lyon have won 9 and 7 respectively but their leagues were weaker if we're being honest.

Could you see another team winning 3 on the spin?

Think Chelsea are reaping the rewards of their team being together for a few years now. Wenger has only won one at a time and you'd have to admit his 03/04 team should have won more.

Inter have won 5 on the bounce in Italy although Calciopoli did give all of the other big teams a huge kick in the teeth. That said they look like they are trying to rid themselves of that winning run by appointing a manager with #@&%!ing up the league pedigree..

Originally Posted by Argentina

Thinking about Wenger winning another title is pushing it far enough.
Wenger retaining a title is mindboggling
Wenger retaining the title a THIRD time is
Wenger doing winning 3 on the bounce TWICE! Jesus

Adequately summed up. I particularly like the little rimshot fella

Originally Posted by Sandman

Would have been three times if Cantona hadn't have been banned.

And would have been four on the spin last season. Could easily have happened

Originally Posted by dodger

And would have been four on the spin last season. Could easily have happened

It would have happened had we bought some proper fire power instead of Michael £#%&!ing Owen in the summer.

The 4 year theory has legs. No doubt someone will say that winning the league back to back has no bearing on the potential to win the league for a 3rd year on the bounce but how do you quantify hunger / desire ? More so in the modern age when a player isn't struggling to feed the kids due to a team mates £#%&! up.

I don't think the problem is so much keeping a team together, or keeping the players' desire and hunger up...I think the bigger problem is those players all keeping their form over 4 seasons. It usually doesn't work out that way. A player's peak usually isn't much ore than 4 years anyway, so you'll always have new players coming through who are still learning, older players who can't do it every game anymore, and others just having an off season.

there's an element of having to freshen the squad up as well. even if there is no deterioration in the abilities of the players you need new faces and changes to keep motivation high and to keep a hunger around the group.

Originally Posted by Sandman

Would have been three times if Cantona hadn't have been banned.

Would have been 5 on the trot in that case.

Ferrgie I think messed this squad up. It had no where near peaked and could and should have been strengthened but he let Ronaldo go without replacing him and Hargreaves not been replaced. And replaced a superb player like Tevez with a waster such as Berbatov.

Had that side been strengthened it could have dominated Europe and the prem for another 5 years.

Originally Posted by Mancunian Red

Ferrgie I think messed this squad up. It had no where near peaked and could and should have been strengthened but he let Ronaldo go without replacing him and Hargreaves not been replaced. And replaced a superb player like Tevez with a waster such as Berbatov.

Had that side been strengthened it could have dominated Europe and the prem for another 5 years.

I don't think you can really say Fergie messed it up. I'm sure Fergie would have loved to have kept Ronaldo, but he wanted to go. I'm sure he'd love a fully fit hargreaves, but he didnt bank on his knees falling in.

The tevez thing, I think we all know now that tevez is a money grabbing little snodgrass, and the money he's on at city, I'm glad fergie didn't match that.

Originally Posted by Mancunian Red

Ferrgie I think messed this squad up. It had no where near peaked and could and should have been strengthened but he let Ronaldo go without replacing him and Hargreaves not been replaced. And replaced a superb player like Tevez with a waster such as Berbatov.

Had that side been strengthened it could have dominated Europe and the prem for another 5 years.

Originally Posted by Gorilla Monsoon

I don't think you can really say Fergie messed it up. I'm sure Fergie would have loved to have kept Ronaldo, but he wanted to go. I'm sure he'd love a fully fit hargreaves, but he didnt bank on his knees falling in.

The tevez thing, I think we all know now that tevez is a money grabbing little snodgrass, and the money he's on at city, I'm glad fergie didn't match that.

Ronaldo was desperate to go but Fergie didn't replace him.

Tevez I don't blame for leaving as Fergie £#%&!ed him about. Fergie was desperate to justify his 31 million buy and used to play him before Tevez and everyone knew who went to the game how good Tevez was but Fergie was desperate to show he hadn't wasted millions he started Berbatov.

Hargreaves has been injured for years - no replacement, we have needed a right back for years.

Tevez was £#%&!ed about? £#%&! OFF U @#%&!