three teams u decide 1994 1999 2008. which wud u say ticked all the boxes

Never thought much about the 2008 team but £#%&! me it was good the top 3 and yes I include that complete @#%&! in the three were almost unplayable. The 99 team reached heights we will probably never see again and the 94 team were probably in my time the first really complete and great team we had since I first went in 78. I'm still undecided but for sheer man for man and £#%&! u attitude I'd go for 94.

Should do a poll. Pol.

1994

My heart says '94, the stats say '99 but my head says '08.

1994 is overrated as a team, the defence weren't good enough for the top level. The front 6 though.

2008 is the best team.

The games changed too much even between that time so you cant answer it. Close thread.

Originally Posted by Lok

My heart says '94, the stats say '99 but my head says '08.

This

2008.
Rooney, ronaldo & tevez..
Vidic and rio partnership probably at its best.
Scholes and giggs were still tearing it up as well as our new signings Hargreaves Nani and Anderson

2008, 1994, 1999 for me.

not just based on pure football, but, well, anyway. there we go.

we've had some £#%&!ing superb players over the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by Withers

1994 is overrated as a team, the defence weren't good enough for the top level. The front 6 though.

2008 is the best team.

Don't agree. Pallister and Irwin were as good as any defender I can think of in todays game. Bruce and Parker less so but both had a lot to offer and would stand up well next to, say, Brown from the 2008 side.

Originally Posted by dodger

Don't agree. Pallister and Irwin were as good as any defender I can think of in todays game. Bruce and Parker less so but both had a lot to offer and would stand up well next to, say, Brown from the 2008 side.

Brown was immense that season. One of our best players.

Has to be our current 2013 vintage for me. It really covers all the bases from gutless shit@#%&!s stealing a living at the top level to players who should have retired 2 years ago.

The football is an eclectic mix of slow-as-£#%&! predictable shit, even slower predictable shit and unpredictable shit with comedy prat falls thrown in. These are really halcyon days.

Has to be 99. We won £#%&!ing everything we were just never beaten, refused to even accept we could be.

Originally Posted by Lok

My heart says '94, the stats say '99 but my head says '08.

This.

1994 is my favourite team ever tbh - a top player in every position, an 11 that rolls off the tongue, pacey wingers and a team that could fight you just as much as it could beat you (Schmeichel, Bruce, Ince, Keane, Hughes, Cantona, Robson on the bench).

Originally Posted by dodger

Don't agree. Pallister and Irwin were as good as any defender I can think of in todays game. Bruce and Parker less so but both had a lot to offer and would stand up well next to, say, Brown from the 2008 side.

Don't agree on Pallister, he wasn't right up there for me. You also need to remember the level of forward they came up against in those days wasn't anywhere as good as todays top forwards. We didn't go far enough in Europe to see how good they were against top players, when they played Romario and Stoichkov they got tore apart.

Brown was phenomenal in 2008. If you judged him just on that year rather than as a player as a whole then I think he stands up against the rest of the defence.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Has to be our current 2013 vintage for me. It really covers all the bases from gutless shit@#%&!s stealing a living at the top level to players who should have retired 2 years ago.

The football is an eclectic mix of slow-as-£#%&! predictable shit, even slower predictable shit and unpredictable shit with comedy prat falls thrown in. These are really halcyon days.

Originally Posted by Lok

My heart says '94, the stats say '99 but my head says '08.

This

It's a very tough question, tbh. The starting line-ups for '94 and '99 just pick themselves, but the '08 squad had a lot more depth, as well as the world's best player.

'94 is probably my favourite United side ever, but the lack of European success means you probably have to class both '99 and '08 above them, regardless of the 3 foreigner role.

'99 possibly edge '08 for me, just because they did the Treble, and also because they had a core of homegrown players, which is what United should be all about.

Imagine a team made up of '94's attack, '99's midfield and '08's defence.

Originally Posted by Withers

Don't agree on Pallister, he wasn't right up there for me. You also need to remember the level of forward they came up against in those days wasn't anywhere as good as todays top forwards. We didn't go far enough in Europe to see how good they were against top players, when they played Romario and Stoichkov they got tore apart.

True, but not many players handled those two tbf. Plus in 1991 Bruce and Pally did alright against the Barça side that won the European Cup a year later.

I know what you mean though, that's why I always think of that side as my favourite rather than the best. Clearly the 1999 and 08 teams were better.

Still £#%&!ing scandalous that Bruce never got an England cap though, which Bobby Robson apologised to him for apparently.

Page 3 already and I haven't been abused it must be a good thread bar sparkys rant of nonsense