Who will stop Liverpool in the EPL 2002-03?

[sanariot]

CHELSEA!!!!!

[Matt Clark]

He he he .... it had to happen.

If Chelsea win the league I will come back here and publicly commit to do something involving hats and eating. I'll even fly over to whereever you are and do it for you as a special, end-of-season performance.

Manchester United will enter this season as favourites for the title. They were favourites BEFORE the Rio thing.

Rio Ferdinand could have a massive impact - I have nothing but total, absolute admiration for his skills as a defender, ever since I saw him for West Ham against Leicester four years ago. I saw him again at Anfield when Leeds beat us 2-1 a couple of years ago and he was flawless, he had Owen and Emmo in his back pocket for the entire game. He was applauded off the pitch by the entire crowd, he was that good.

Put him in that thing the Rags hilariously call a defence and all of a sudden United won't be having to score 4 goals a game to get the three points. But - and this is key - they will probably still score bags of goals anyway. That equals at least one pot per season.

They may not win the league, but this is one of those seasons where that old cliche "Whoever comes ahead of United will win the title" is entirely apt.

Liverpool can do it. We have the defence, we have the firepower. What we have so far lacked is a consistently excellent midfield unit. Individually there is much to commend in there, but collectively they have not all fired at the same time for a sufficiently lengthy period. Last season Gerrard struggled to recapture his form of the previous campaign, Spud was Spud and Smicer was, well ... crap.

The addition of Cheyrou excites me - he is the real deal and could well do the business. Distaste for the man aside, Bowyer will also be a massive shot in the arm for the midfield unit.

So, if the midfield fires throughout, then I can see us doing it. If not, it's United all the way.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Originally posted by astar24
I think Liverpool will win the Premiership title for 2003 with the new edition of 'serial killer' El Hadji Diouf, Michael Owen & Emile Heskey who will stop them that is a mighty strong offensive trio.

I can't help thinking all these Senegalese players will be failures in the epl, or at least they'll take a long time settling in. Just because they hit form in the WC they get snapped up immediatly and this i think is a mistake. Liverpool i think won't see a massive goalscoring increase from the introduction of diouf, talented player though he is.

If Man Utd pull their thumbs out, get Rio and possibly another defender Quality Defender then their defense won't be so ''hilarious'', keeping in mind Wes Brown, the Nevilles and Silvestre are very solid defenders. Never underestimate Man Utd, you may hate them for being miles more successful than your club, but they're only successful because ultimatly, they kick ass, its just Ferguson made a few mistakes this season.

[Matt Clark]

If Man Utd pull their thumbs out, get Rio and possibly another defender Quality Defender then their defense won't be so ''hilarious'', keeping in mind Wes Brown, the Nevilles and Silvestre are very solid defenders

There's that thing again - that syndrome, that disease that causes Scuzzers to look at a lumpen, hapless no-mark and think "Hmm ... now THAT lad can defend!"

IF Manchester United replace two of their four starting defenders, and do so by purchasing arguably the most in-form defender in the world right now, alongside another "quality" player, THEN they will not be a risible shambles at the back.

Read that again. That's what you just said. In other words, you concurred that their current set-up is beyond any form of acceptable joke.

Gary Neville is the only player in that list who is even remotely worthy of note as a competent (at best) defender. His younger brother has just completed a season that saw him fail - and fail miserably - to get even a halfway regular spot in the worst United defence to have taken to the field since Dennis Law back-heeled the red half of Manchester into oblivion.

Mikael Silvestre? Please ...

Good acid test - name a Premiership club that would buy him if he were put up for sale today.

In fact, if lickul Phiwip is to be believed, we may soon actually get to see that process in action. He has announced that he will seek football elsewhere if he does not break into the first team at United on a regular basis this season.

Macclesfield Town fans beware ...

[Matt Clark]

Never underestimate Man Utd, you may hate them for being miles more successful than your club, but they're only successful because ultimatly, they kick ass, its just Ferguson made a few mistakes this season.

And one more thing ... I know from other posts you've made that you're only a wee lad, so I shall forgive you the, hahem, "short" view of football's annals. But if you ever get round to delving into this sport in any more detail, you will find that my club is quite considerably more successful than the one you claim to support. By quite a margin, you'll doubtless be flabbergasted to find.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Did you not see Wes Brown performances near the end of the premiership last season? Brown is a hugely exciting prospect imho. imho Brown will be the best right back in Englands arsenal in a few years, he's gonna get the experiance and the training...

Silvestre as a Defending defender isn't exactly ************ hot granted but he a great attacking defender, he's always up field hammering in the crosses and running at other defenses. I do like Silvestre but i wouldn't mind seeing him replaced with say, Bouma or roberto Carlos or someone, imho Silvestre is a solid defender but he's neither outstanding nor crap. As for the acid test its pretty much impossible to say. I'm much the same opinion of Phil but he can put in his bad performances. If Phil moves it'd be pretty good because Ferguson would replace him with someone better.

Our defense hasn't changed much since the glory days, we still need a Stam replacement and thats Rio Ferdinand, after the introduction of Ferdinand i think the entire defense will benefit, and even if we do have all these shite players we'll have a better defense. Its not like Silvestre and the nevilles are brand new additions to the club, they were there and playing last time we were kicking ass.

I actually think the defensive weakness we have to not only Blanc but Barthez, i for one am sick of his ************ ups. He's a quality keeper and on his day is probably one of the best, but his naff ups cost us games, look at the 3 - 1 loss to the Arse. I think the club would benefit from replacing him as well

[Matt Clark]

Even allowing for the fact that he has been out for 9 months with a cruciate ligament injury, Wes Brown has been a “hugely exciting prospect” for about three years now. Wayne Bridge, Chris Riggot, Titus Bramble and Scott Parker have all done more to justify the accolades they receive - and none receive the level of hype that Brown gets courtesy of the Manchester United lapdog known as “the English Press”.
Silvestre is pap. Deal with it. You can always tell that a defender is, basically speaking, shIt when people start focusing on their contribution at the other end of the field. What United need is a defender, not an overlapping second winger. The best midfield unit in the game can do without the additional services of Mickael Silvestre. The worst defence in last year’s Champions League needs more than the services of Mickael Silvestre.
Rio Ferdinand will solve many many problems. But not all of them.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Originally posted by Matt Clark


And one more thing ... I know from other posts you've made that you're only a wee lad, so I shall forgive you the, hahem, "short" view of football's annals. But if you ever get round to delving into this sport in any more detail, you will find that my club is quite considerably more successful than the one you claim to support. By quite a margin, you'll doubtless be flabbergasted to find.

Well, the medievil times don't really count for me, i was talking about the previous decade, were Man Utd have basically dominated the premiership, and lets face it, these past 10 years are more important than back in the 1930's or something (whenever Liverpool won the premiership a few times, can't be arsed looking it up). I mean, Preston won the premiership a few times in the early 20th century but no one really cares that much do they. Indeed, your club is more successful over a huge time period, so please stop with the whole ''I hate Man Utd because they win a lot of stuff'' kind of thing, because of course liverpool have won more stuff than they have.

[Matt Clark]

:rolleyes:

Dearie me ... are you seriously admitting that football beyond the plastic fantastic period of the last decade is a mystery to you?

I don't hate Manchester United. How can you hate what you cannot take seriously? You and your plc will never inspire anything other than disdain in real football fans.

As to the historica dimension of football, remember this -

"Form is temporary. Class is permanent."

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Matt Clark


But if you ever get round to delving into this sport in any more detail, you will find that my club is quite considerably more successful than the one you claim to support. .

Each year this becomes less and less true. Liverpool is still the greatest English club of all time, but Manchester United is rapidly catching up. It would be a shame if Liverpool would have to rely entirely on European Cups to make this argument, but it appears this will be the case in the very near future. Given Manchester United's massive wealth advantage, it's only a matter of time.

[Matt Clark]

Well, even allowing for the fact that that is hardly a burning issue, United still have all sorts of pots to win to catch up with us and that presumes we win none in the same period. I know you don't know the exact deficit, but if wealth were all that counted then United would always have been the most successful club in the UK - they were the wealthiest club in Britain for every one of the 26 years they failed to win the title too.

So, rubbish to that. Again.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
Well, even allowing for the fact that that is hardly a burning issue, United still have all sorts of pots to win to catch up with us and that presumes we win none in the same period. I know you don't know the exact deficit, but if wealth were all that counted then United would always have been the most successful club in the UK - they were the wealthiest club in Britain for every one of the 26 years they failed to win the title too.

So, rubbish to that. Again.

They're only four championships behind and already ahead in FA Cups. I much prefer Liverpool to Manchester United, but facts are facts. Manchester United has made up tons of ground over the last decade and are within reach of being the best English club ever, unless you need to rely on European Cups. I wouldn't be surprised to see Manchester United catch up there as well, but it might take a very long time. Liverpool has a shot at holding that lead for many years.

Manchester United is now so much wealthier than Liverpool, and any other English club, that they are very likely to be the top English club over the long run. I'd be thrilled if it doesn't work out that way, but I wouldn't bet against it. The differences are substantial.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by BenReilly
Manchester United is now so much wealthier than Liverpool, and any other English club, that they are very likely to be the top English club over the long run. I'd be thrilled if it doesn't work out that way, but I wouldn't bet against it. The differences are substantial.

With Liverpool and Arsenal both having new stadiums on the board, this might not be the sure thing you make it.

Also, Liverpool simply goes about it different-they don't exploit their "brand" the way Manchester United do. They certainly have the history and following to do so.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by Real Ray


With Liverpool and Arsenal both having new stadiums on the board, this might not be the sure thing you make it.

Also, Liverpool simply goes about it different-they don't exploit their "brand" the way Manchester United do. They certainly have the history and following to do so.

I hope Liverpool can catch up financially, but they are very far behind. Put it this way, if you take Manchester United's revenues EXCLUDING all ticket sales, they still beat any other EPL club.

The unfortunate fact is that Manchester United has pretty much caught up with Liverpool all-time. Liverpool supporters need to change their argument from "much better historically" to, at best, "a little better."

I admire Liverpool very much. I think they are a class organization and should be praised for staying so competitive.

[Matt Clark]

"Only" four championships"? "Unless" you count European Cups (the highest achievement in club football, anywhere, ever ... )?

Well, like I say, it's hardly a burning issue, but if you seriously believe that Manchester United will outstrip Liverpool's future title potential by four trophies to every one then you know even less about English football than I thought (thought possible, even).

Financial success guarantees you nothing. If tons of money (or, at least, tons of expenditure) guaranteed you trophies then Inter Milan would have more trophies than they would know what to do with.

And as I also said, Manchester United have always been the richest club in Britain. They have always been BY FAR the richest club in Britain, even. But that has not always equalled success. Indeed, more often than not, it has equalled sod all.

To follow your argument through to it's logical conclusion, the reason Manchester United overtook Liverpool as the pre-eminent force in English football in 1993 was that they simply had more money than us. Not, as was actually the case, that they finally got the blend right, that they finally got that magic formula by which individual talents on and off the field click into place and form one all-conquering whole. And that they did this at precisely the same time that Liverpool, after two unrivalled decades, lost that self-same thing.

You can't buy that formula. You have to concoct it. And if you look at United now and Liverpool now, there are two equally astute alchemists at work, using a series of components that, combined are representative of equal potential.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
:rolleyes:

Dearie me ... are you seriously admitting that football beyond the plastic fantastic period of the last decade is a mystery to you?

I don't hate Manchester United. How can you hate what you cannot take seriously? You and your plc will never inspire anything other than disdain in real football fans.

As to the historica dimension of football, remember this -

"Form is temporary. Class is permanent."

I like football but that doesn't mean i can be arsed finding out who won what 70 years ago or something. The past is the past and well to liverpool for being so great, but the fact remains since i've started liking football man utd have been winning a lot of stuff, in fact a reason i got into football was man utd.

[Matt Clark]

Yeah. Just checking.

[Bauser]

People shouldn't mix money with success on the field all the time. Look at Barcelona over the years. A 115,000 capacity stadium with big name stars unmatched anywhere in the world and they still can't boast more titles in the European Cup than Red Star Belgrade or Steaua Bucharest.

Who says Man Utd will continue to win when Sir Alex one day steps down and retires? How will they cope with a new man in charge after almost 20 years with the same manager? How many promosing youngsters have they produced there since the Beckham generation? Did last season's performances indicate more success this year?

Football is an unpredictable game. Just ask AC Milan what happened in the mid-90s when success suddenly dried up after dominating for a long time. In 1994 when they outplayed Barcelona in the European Cup final people talked about total domination. They had 7-8 successful seasons behind them and looked destined to conquer everything and be unbeatable for many years more. A couple of years later, there was nothing left.

You can't plan to far ahead in this game and predictions that say United will overtake Liverpool's all-time hegemony within a given number of years are worth squat.

[Matt Clark]

Obvious, isn't it ...

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Originally posted by Matt Clark
"Only" four championships"? "Unless" you count European Cups (the highest achievement in club football, anywhere, ever ... )?

Well, like I say, it's hardly a burning issue, but if you seriously believe that Manchester United will outstrip Liverpool's future title potential by four trophies to every one then you know even less about English football than I thought (thought possible, even).

Financial success guarantees you nothing. If tons of money (or, at least, tons of expenditure) guaranteed you trophies then Inter Milan would have more trophies than they would know what to do with.

And as I also said, Manchester United have always been the richest club in Britain. They have always been BY FAR the richest club in Britain, even. But that has not always equalled success. Indeed, more often than not, it has equalled sod all.

To follow your argument through to it's logical conclusion, the reason Manchester United overtook Liverpool as the pre-eminent force in English football in 1993 was that they simply had more money than us. Not, as was actually the case, that they finally got the blend right, that they finally got that magic formula by which individual talents on and off the field click into place and form one all-conquering whole. And that they did this at precisely the same time that Liverpool, after two unrivalled decades, lost that self-same thing.

You can't buy that formula. You have to concoct it. And if you look at United now and Liverpool now, there are two equally astute alchemists at work, using a series of components that, combined are representative of equal potential.


Please, look at man utd's squad - how many of our best players haven't been bought for 20 odd million, Gary Neville, Paul Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, keane, butt, solskjaer, irwin.... I mean, of course we have Veron and Nistelrooy now but shedloads of our players we've had for ages and didn't cost millions. Our best players are probably the ones who have been in the squad for years and years, our world class midfield is not Veron, its Keane, Giggs, Scholes and Beckham - they've been with us for years, and with the exception of Keane maybe, we've trained them to be the best

I think a club that counts coming third in the premiership as a major, major, major loss and disgrace can't be said to be a naff, unsuccessful club.

and if indeed money does not mean success, then why do you believe man utd are better than Liverpool because of nothing more than money?