A Question About Carlos

I think the team began to fail at the back end of 2000/2001 season. People often talk about Ruud Van Nistelrooy, and in particular how he was supposedly left high and dry and eventually discarded. What is forgotten is that many people actually questioned why we were even in for him in the first place towards the end of the record-breaking 99/2000 season.

When the transfer collapsed, Ferguson waited an entire season for him. By the time he got here United had flopped against Bayern Munich over two pretty dour contests and started taking the piss in the league to the extent that Roy Keane was using United games at home to settle personal vendettas - the stats for the end of that season are pretty shocking: 3 wins from the last 10 games; only 6 from the last 18. We ended the campaign with 3 straight defeats.


Tropical, I'm interested in exactly who you mean when you talk of brilliant and unique players not being replaced? We currently have two brilliant and unique players in the team who've been here for 3 and 4 years respectively. And Roy Keane only actually left in December 05, leading us to employ Carrick playing in his stead. So genuine question: who are you talking about? And what time-frame?

It seems to me that the bedding in of this current squad has been a painful process, delayed by the problem of replacing Schmeichel, and by the easing out of Beckham, Keane and RvN. In the past, particularly 95/96 I mean, I think United were pretty lucky not to have had any real challengers other than the psychologically weak Newcastle and Liverpool teams. In recent times we have been less able to wing it due to tougher, more resolute and more talented and experienced competition.

That said, we have in fact still competed for trophies over the past 6 seasons (including this one). We have at times played some absolutely fantastic football over the course of those seasons. And eventually (following the last 2 or 3 frustrating seasons) we have now found some consistency, mental resolve and tactical nous to enable us to play as we all love to see - and to be up there with the best around once again.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Tropical, I'm interested in exactly who you mean when you talk of brilliant and unique players not being replaced? We currently have two brilliant and unique players in the team who've been here for 3 and 4 years respectively. And Roy Keane only actually left in December 05, leading us to employ Carrick playing in his stead. So genuine question: who are you talking about? And what time-frame?

"exact replacements". And my point was that, while it is never possible to find exact replacements for unique players - that's what makes them unique - one still has to prepare for their eventual departure before it actually happens


Keane is the foremost example. Just because a player is still at the club doesn't mean he doesn't need replacing. It was obvious for a long time before Keane left that he wasn't up to his former role (although he could still have been the best defensive midfielder in the league, had he been instructed to stick exclusively to that role.) But even with Keane still in the side, we were light in the midfield, and when he was unavailable, the wind whistled straight through it.


Similarly Scholesy. We've been blessed to have him back on the form he's been in this season, but that was never a given. We should have been better prepared for Scholes's absence and the possibility that he wouldn't make it back - OK, you can't see a mystery eye complaint coming (boom boom); but he's never been the fittest even at the best of times. It's part of his genius that he can be the player he is without being much of an athlete.


It was often said that there was no point recruiting Keane's successor(s) while he was still at the club, as they either wouldn't want to come or wouldn't get to play; but that's nonsense. Look at Liverpool, who in central midfield have the options of Gerrard, Alonso, Sissoko and Mascherano. And they're sodding Liverpool. Not, before anyone starts, that I want us to emulate Liverpool/take Mascherano on dodgy terms/whatever - I'm merely citing them as an example. There's no good reason why we could not right now be as strong and well-covered in that part of the field as we are in defence.


We simply weren't covered for the disasters that befell our midfield, and it's not with benefit of hindsight that I say it. That so many of us spent so much of the previous three seasons in despair over our ever-worsening central midfield options is not just because we're moaning bastards; there was (and still is) a problem there, one even £#%&!wits like me could see coming a mile off without pulling down four million quid a year to do so; and yet Fergie either couldn't or didn't. That was a big, big lapse, however much one tries to talk one's way around it.

Give yourself some rep.

Well, Rooney and Ronaldo are brilliant and unique and have slowly but surely had the United attack melded around them over the last 3 seasons is my (obvious) argument.

On Keane what to say? For a start, he could have been told to just sit. But then you can't play wingers in a 4-4-2 with a midfielder who just sits. As for Liverpool, they are welcome to their midfield options - I'd take Gerrard but that's all.

These are side issues anyway: Overall, your argument seems to be that the signings of Veron, Djemba and Kleberson all failed and the buck stops with Ferguson. Therefore the last 3 years are all down to him, and regardless of where the team is at now, there is no reason whatsoever for the manager to have been patiently assembling the current team, given the resources he had available to him.

Myself, I think it would've been fine and dandy to have a player of Scholes' class to step in last spring. And a player of Keane's class too, for that matter. But we had to learn to play without them sooner or later, and we did it in the second half of last season. The team also proved they could score goals without Ruud van Nistelrooy.

The up-shot of all that has happened is that we now have a team that does not have Keane and RvN blocking the path to the first team. How that came about, and how quickly, may not have been the best way. But it was going to be difficult, whichever way.


[SIZE="1"]that was hard work; finish me off please

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Overall, your argument seems to be that the signings of Veron, Djemba and Kleberson all failed and the buck stops with Ferguson. Therefore the last 3 years are all down to him, and regardless of where the team is at now, there is no reason whatsoever for the manager to have been patiently assembling the current team, given the resources he had available to him.

That's not it "overall", at all. It's simply your interpretation of one element of my argument - the bit you specifically asked me about.


But you're right about the side issue thing. I reiterated my broader argument not in the hope of convincing anyone of it - we've been over it a hundred times before, and I expect we're all weary enough to agree to disagree - but to spell out what I (and many others) criticised Fergie for. And most importantly, what we *didn't* criticise Fergie for. This, in response to Borsuk's very uncharacteristic bit of straw man building.

Originally Posted by Tropical

- Fergie was at fault, not for failing to find exact replacements for brilliant and unique players, which is self-evidently impossible, but either for not replacing them at all, despite having more than enough time, or for attempting to replace them with players so shockingly sub-par you had to wonder if there were other reasons for signing them. It's all very well talking about rebuilding, but the process was delayed - unnecessarily - by years.

- even with the gaps in our squad, we still we had the players to challenge for trophies, whether or not we won them. It's not naive to suggest that, simply and most importantly, we could and should have played better football. The idea that our frequently supine attitude and godawful football was principally down to rebuilding *does* sound a touch naive, though

- In short, Fergie made very poor use of both the club's resources, and the squad it already had.

Originally Posted by Tropical

"exact replacements". And my point was that, while it is never possible to find exact replacements for unique players - that's what makes them unique - one still has to prepare for their eventual departure before it actually happens

Keane is the foremost example.........Similarly Scholesy. We've been blessed to have him back on the form he's been in this season, but that was never a given. We should have been better prepared for Scholes's absence and the possibility that he wouldn't make it back

It was often said that there was no point recruiting Keane's successor(s) while he was still at the club, as they either wouldn't want to come or wouldn't get to play; but that's nonsense. Look at Liverpool..... There's no good reason why we could not right now be as strong and well-covered in that part of the field as we are in defence.

We simply weren't covered for the disasters that befell our midfield, and it's not with benefit of hindsight that I say it. That so many of us spent so much of the previous three seasons in despair over our ever-worsening central midfield options is not just because we're moaning bastards; there was (and still is) a problem there, one even £#%&!wits like me could see coming a mile off without pulling down four million quid a year to do so; and yet Fergie either couldn't or didn't. That was a big, big lapse, however much one tries to talk one's way around it.

Originally Posted by Tropical

That's not it "overall", at all. It's simply your interpretation of one element of my argument - the bit you specifically asked me about..

So why did you say it was over these previous messages then? I mean, the players he brought in from 2001 onwards to play the role you talk about all failed, right? My direct question was about exactly who you meant when you spoke of these brilliant and unique players not being replaced. Your answer was Roy Keane.

Anyway whatever, I basically think the argument that "the re-building process was delayed - unnecessarily - by years" is drivel. I think this for the reasons I have already posted on the thread - namely that we did play some great football, we did challenge for honours (albeit only seriously in the domestic cups), we did sign some fantastic players, and we have opened up the path to the first team and become a squad to be reckoned with at the highest level once again.

And if we go on and win the league we will open up the path to the first team for some of our brilliant youngsters, as well as becoming a much more attractive proposition for would-be transfer targets again.

Originally Posted by Tropical

- Fergie was at fault for allowing the team we did have - which, while not ideal, was still potentially a strong one - to routinely play with dull, cautious and ineffective timidity; even against the least impressive of opposition, which provided said opposition with great comfort and encouragement. And Chelsea were not unassailable; even with the gaps in our squad, we still we had the players to challenge for trophies, whether or not we won them. It's not naive to suggest that, simply and most importantly, we could and should have played better football. The idea that our frequently supine attitude and godawful football was principally down to rebuilding *does* sound a touch naive, though

I reckon a lot of it was down to the personnel. I think the turgid football was mainly down to the players we had. Fergie's reluctance to replace/dispense with Keane meant a 3-man midfield to accommodate him and an ageing Keane, an out of sorts Scholes and an the modest talents of Flecther or Djemba-Djemba was never really going to be a title-winning combination; especially when ahead of that you had the still rough diamonds Ronaldo and Rooney and the increasingly immobile and one-dimensional van Nistelrooy (the fact that his alternative was always injured didn't help, either.) It wasn't a side likely to win major trophies.

They weren't capable of challenging a side like Chelsea. Chelsea were an absolute monster. I read about a month ago while we were six points clear of Chelsea that if you compared us to the Chelsea at the same stage last season - we would actually still be six points behind.

They notched up 90-odd points in the last two seasons. I'm not saying they were unbeatable but I don't think there is a manager on earth that could have lead the squad we had, with all it's problems, to much better than second or third place finishes.

Of course this is Fergie's fault for allowing the squad to deteriorate, and I don't buy the idea that he has known exactly what he has been doing over the last few years. I think even he wouldn't have been expecting us to be in the position we are in now, while our incredible luck with injuries up until recently has been crucial in us getting away with obvious deficiencies in the squad this season, also.

Hmm, an interesting read this thread.

My only contribution to it is thus: United started going downhill whenever it was that Fergie 'took his eye off the ball', as he himself admitted. He made plans to retire, started caring more about horses and honours than football, and let others take over the running of the club. Simple. And i think if it wasn't for two things he would have walked away by now. Those two things are Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney. I remember reading his autobiography, he mentioned going to watch a world cup and begin disappointed that there were no true star players like a Maradona or a Pele. He mused whether football had moved on to the point where there would never be a player in that mould again. With Rooney and Ronaldo you can see that he has regained that belief, that excitement over a truly promising young player, like a child with his Rooney posters on his bedroom wall. It is these two players that have reignited his love for football and for United. You can see this season he cares so much about the team, his rants at the pundits are back, his crazy celebrations for almost every goal we score. He can see the blossoming of an exciting new team with two of the world's greatest young players at its head. Fergie is fully back and now the rest of the footballing world knows about it. This only goes to show how great a manger Ferguson is when on top of his game, and how much we suffered when he was distracted and half hearted. And perhaps how much we will suffer when he eventually decides to pack it in.

we're not all weary enough to agree to disagree, after all.


But I am. It's been a long week.

Originally Posted by Lazarus

I honestly think he was scapegoated for other factors (and by me as much as anyone)

I agree. He was an easy target in the days when Fergie was seen as untouchable.

Originally Posted by Tropical

we're not all weary enough to agree to disagree, after all.


But I am. It's been a long week.

Yes but as a skilled wordsmith (after a fashion!) what you give with one half a sentence you take away with the other!

the only bit I'm really concerned about is nailing the fallacy that Fergie's critics were motivated by a lack of success or silverware.



That's not an issue of who's right about Fergie. You can think I'm wrong as wrong can be, and that's fine. I haven't the energy to rehearse that entire argument again. It's an issue of arguing in good or bad faith; and Mr Borsuk has (very uncharacteristically, as I say) strayed into the latter.

Middlesbrough and Benfica away last season had their positives

I always tend to put the blame for these moments squarely in the lap of the players.

That doesn't mean Fergie couldn't have done his job better at times, especially when it came to obsessing over the AC Milan games. Or that the characters and personal backgrounds of some of the players that were signed couldn't have been investigated a bit more thoroughly. Or that Ronaldo shouldn't have started at home to Porto. Or that Rooney shouldn't have been sent to anger management classes.

But if RvN had scored in Porto, or if Rio hadn't been just offside, or if we'd scored against Sunderland.....................

Originally Posted by Tropical

I'm surprised at you, old bean. That's misrepresentative, and really just a (typically measured, granted) rehash of the weary and discredited "spoilt bastards" argument.

Speaking for myself - although I'm sure it applies to many others of similar views - my criticisms were *never* that we weren't winning things. On the footballing side (where we've seen an improvement; the non-footballing stuff will be back to haunt us, you can be sure of that), it could be summarised thus, and I stand by it:

- Fergie was at fault, not for failing to find exact replacements for brilliant and unique players, which is self-evidently impossible, but either for not replacing them at all, despite having more than enough time, or for attempting to replace them with players so shockingly sub-par you had to wonder if there were other reasons for signing them. It's all very well talking about rebuilding, but the process was delayed - unnecessarily - by years.

- Fergie was at fault for allowing the team we did have - which, while not ideal, was still potentially a strong one - to routinely play with dull, cautious and ineffective timidity; even against the least impressive of opposition, which provided said opposition with great comfort and encouragement. And Chelsea were not unassailable; even with the gaps in our squad, we still we had the players to challenge for trophies, whether or not we won them. It's not naive to suggest that, simply and most importantly, we could and should have played better football. The idea that our frequently supine attitude and godawful football was principally down to rebuilding *does* sound a touch naive, though

- In short, Fergie made very poor use of both the club's resources, and the squad it already had. Nobody suggested that the club's fortunes cannot go up and down; the issue was always making the most of what was available.

Whether you agree with them or not, these criticisms were (and are) made in good faith and backed up with good reasons. It's dispiriting to see you, of all people, drag up the canard that the Fergie-outs are merely fickle and bitter about the lack of trophies. If anyone in this camp ever expressed such a sentiment - rather than had it wrongly attributed to them - it's beyond me to recall it.

i think you're a little overly touchy here. nothing in what i said suggests that all the criticism of fergie is unjustified - far from it. supporting the man is not, as you know, the same as attributing infallibility to his actions. the comment is aimed at some of the comments ('sometimes the comments...') about fergie which are as i described. i would expect us to be in agreement about that - surely you distance yourself from some of the bile aimed at him.

i have no problem at all with thoughtful criticism, whether i agree with it or not. my comments were aimed at the mindless criticism which was - surprise - much more in evidence in the last two seasons that this. that these critics are suddenly rather less vocal speaks clearly of the validity of their points; that your criticisms are still defensible speaks equally clearly of yours, though - as you know - i look on things differently.