Question for the older members of this board

[The Guv'nor]

In Liverpool's period of domination, did their football ever come close to the quality of free flowing attacking football that's our tradition?

[Motterman]

All Manchester United fans know that football didn't exist before 1992.

[biro]

No. They were the Chelsea of their day, a remorseless footballing machine that used to grind their opponents into submission. Tight at the back, pass the opposition to death and leave it for one of their strikers to nick a goal or two.

United meanwhile, were swashbuckling cavaliers who sometimes couldn't get up for games against lesser opposition (and therefore would lose a fair few games). They were usually the only team to actually give the scousers a game during that period, as most teams rolled over and died as soon as the whistle went.

[433tom]

In Liverpool's period of domination, did their football ever come close to the quality of free flowing attacking football that's our tradition?

I will go with biro and say a big no. Of our rivals, probably Leeds in early 70s and Wenger's Arsenal teams played what I would call entertaining football.

[TomClare]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Certainly the teams under Shankly and Paisley during the 70's played good football and I would never have likened them to Chelsea of today. Just my opinion. I saw a lot of them and they did have some tremendous players in their teams through the 70's. They were so consistent and that was what they had over United - they also never knew when they were beaten, and like the more recent successful United teams of the 90's, they won a lot of games in the last 5 minutes. There was a time, although these days it's hard to believe, when there was no animosity between United and Liverpool fans. It started with the demise of United in the 70's and the ascendancy of Liverpool.

[The Guv'nor]

Good football, but would you say it was comparable to the best of some of the stuff our teams have produced?

[433tom]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Certainly the teams under Shankly and Paisley during the 70's played good football and I would never have likened them to Chelsea of today. Just my opinion. I saw a lot of them and they did have some tremendous players in their teams through the 70's. They were so consistent and that was what they had over United - they also never knew when they were beaten, and like the more recent successful United teams of the 90's, they won a lot of games in the last 5 minutes. There was a time, although these days it's hard to believe, when there was no animosity between United and Liverpool fans. It started with the demise of United in the 70's and the ascendancy of Liverpool.


I think they played good football. But not with the same amount of flair as United.

[TomClare]

Good football, but would you say it was comparable to the best of some of the stuff our teams have produced?

It hurts me to say say it, but again, this is only my opinion (we all see things differently) but yes it was. I don't take for a minute that they were defensive sides - they defended well that's for sure but they were lethal on the counter. For me it's credit where credit is due.

[Dark Savante]

In Liverpool's period of domination, did their football ever come close to the quality of free flowing attacking football that's our tradition?

I think a few things should be made clear before trying to answer a question like this.

At their best, Liverpool had their own ethos and way of playing and dominating matches. Just as we have the 'up-and-at-em' all out aggression to nearly every single succesful side we've had, their sides had a calm and control with a nasty sting in the tail.

Liverpool's sides were possession and patience based and in most games they played they would have the lion's share of possession, sometimes looking aimless as they passed it around the back ad infinitum and then to the goalie, who would pick the ball up... and then repeat the process again. And sometimes they'd really turn it on in the oppo half. The stories about them only winning back then because of the pass-back rule are vastly overstated - they were a very, very strong club and more importantly, their style had a European slant to it from the outset, unlike ours, which has always made our life in Europe more difficult than it probably should be.

Our clashes with them during the 80's were exciting precisely because we'd go at them relentlessly win or lose, many sides of the time were dead once they (Liverpool) scored the first goal (that's when the passback to the keeper and loop games would really start) tiring themselves out chasing a constantly moving ball. I've always felt our rivalry with them has been so great because we're so different in terms of footballing philosphies. It's also why you can't directly compare their style with ours as at our best we've played the kind of football they just wouldn't from the outset, and vice versa - we have never been able to kill a game like they could, and they've never had the outstanding individualism across a pitch as we have at our best.

The common statement you'll hear about them is that their sides were always greater than the sum of their parts. Individually they haven't had many star laden sides, certainly not compared to us. Usually they'd have 2 or 3 outstanding players capable of magic and the rest of the team playing sensible, controlled football.

Hansen, Souness and Dalglish were one such grouping. Dalglish is one of my favourite players because I found his game to be amazing and I wished he played for us. Their best team (that I saw) was the one that was banned from Europe - the 87-88 Div 1. winning side. That was the side you'd probably most identify with our style, even though it was based on their passing tradition. It contained: Barnes (easily one of the best players English football has ever seen, was at his peak in this side and was absolutely immense) , Beardsley (our youth product was another brilliant player who to this day is not rated as he should be for his club and country exploits), Aldridge (excellent off the ball movements, very quick and wirey and a brilliant finisher), Craig Johnston (Jheri curled Austrailian white man!) as the creative and finishing sparks and it was awesome to watch. They played very adventurous, aggressive and almost cavalier football for what was normally a calm and controlled club and it's the side which could possibly make a lot of their sides that came before it very, very dull by comparison. It's a very good thing that that side was banned from Europe from our perspective because it's a toss up as to who would have amassed more European Cups between them and AC Milan at that time - remembering that Liverpool's style has always been perfectly suited to European football's pragmatism and clinical bursts.

The best thing they did was bringing in Souness as manager after Dalglish, practically destroying their traditional style and removing a lot of their identity - they've never quite got over that :) As a United supporter, most Liverpool sides would not be agreeable because their football was far too calm and controlled. As a football fan, there was a lot to admire in the way they played the game at that time. There hasn't been a side who can kill league games like them once going up a goal by simply playing keep-ball spread across a pitch. I'm very glad their era is over - it was a misreable time because you pretty much knew that once they scored the game was over.

If you're looking for direct comparisons between us and them I'd say only Souness, Dalglish, Barnes and Beardsley would have slotted effortlessly into our teams of the time and not looked out of place. The two Scots were as firey and determined as our lot were (Whiteside, Robson and Hughes in particular) and Barnes and Beardsley were simply brilliant, sharp thrill-seeking footballers that you could've dropped into any side of Europe and have the fans love them for their skill and magnetism. Outside of that, our sides are not similar, at all.

[Dark Savante]

It hurts me to say say it, but again, this is only my opinion (we all see things differently) but yes it was. I don't take for a minute that they were defensive sides - they defended well that's for sure but they were lethal on the counter. For me it's credit where credit is due.

It must be very surreal for you, having been around before the rivarly became so bitter and utterly hate-filled. For me, they were winning for as long as I could remember as a kid, and they've always detested us as much as we do them these days. But I can agree, credit where it is due. Even the most bitter of them should say the same back about some of our sides over the years.

[TomClare]

It must be very surreal for you, having been around before the rivarly became so bitter and utterly hate-filled. For me, they were winning for as long as I could remember as a kid, and they've always detested us as much as we do them these days. But I can agree, credit where it is due. Even the most bitter of them should say the same back about some of our sides over the years.

Totally agree with you, and thought your analysis in your other post was brilliant.

[sdotsom]

Tom, I had asked a question in another thread and was wondering your take on it. How did you/other fans feel when the club became a plc? Was it as controversial as the BSkyB/Glazers, etc?

[TomClare]

Tom, I had asked a question in another thread and was wondering your take on it. How did you/other fans feel when the club became a plc? Was it as controversial as the BSkyB/Glazers, etc?


To be honest, I don't think that a lot of our fans were truly aware of what the implications of becoming a plc were. There wasn't as much access to information then as we have now, via the internet, news media etc and fans weren't really arsed about it. The plc business was launched during the prior immediacy of the ECWC Final in 1991 and the League Cup Final and fans were more focussed on them, plus, if I remember you were only offered a limited amount of shares - maximum of 2 thousand pounds worth if I'm correct. The plc was formed by Edwards and his cohorts with PRIOR knowledge about what was about to happen in the immediate future - i.e. the formation of the Premier League and the amounts of money that was probably going to be available from tv revenue - i.e. Sky. Two of the main reasons for the formation of the plc as listed in the small print of the prospectus was "to make capital available for the shareholders." Of course the main shareholders were all on the Board at United and as soon as the Club became a plc, most of them sold big quantities of their shares and made a fortune - and they did so time and again until May 2005! The second was "to increase admission prices significantly to raise more revenue" - this they did regularly, but obviously not to the extent that the present owners have. At the end of the 1991/92 season a Junior could still gain entrance to the stadium for 90 pence and an adult could still get a modestly priced ticket in the 5 - 7 pounds region. That all changed immediately.

I personally felt very strongly about what they were doing as did many of my contemporaries. Even today I have such a strong dislike for Edwards and his Clan and I believe that he is responsible for a lot of the things that are bad about football today. It's ironic that in the years leading up to the formation of the plc, Michael Knighton was still on the Board. When he first came on the scene in 1989, he had a blueprint for future commercialism at the Club, and the way in which the Club could exploit the fan's emotional attachment to United. Edwards, in reality, fully embraced and took on board Knighton's blueprint.

The plc formation, coincided with the begining of the most successful era in the club's history and in my honest opinion, it clouded fan's thinking. After so many years of starvation of success in winning championships, the fans were more than apethetic as to what was going on in the Boardroom because of the success they had begun to enjoy.

So in answer to your question - no it wasn't as controversial as the BSkyB bid or Glazer takeover. However, because of modern technology and the access to large amounts of information that they weren't able to get access to before, fans are more aware today of what goes on.

[Vermont Red]

Thanks Tom. Its important to see the big picture with regards to United and the Glazers. Becoming a plc was a pure money grab by Edwards et al and they made it possible for the Glazers to do what they have done. I'm not happy with the Glazers but its important to look back and realize that the plc era was not some kind of "Golden Era" when the team was presided over by loving fans.

[The Guv'nor]

Thanks for your replies.

I also meant to ask, what about the age make up of these Liverpool sides?

Did they contain the odd or a quite a few ''kids''?

[sdotsom]

Thanks for answering my question Tom.

I do think the Premiership years were a bit glorified as well - the success probably kept our minds off other things happening at the club.

I can't even imagine getting into OT for under 10 pounds.

[Dark Savante]

Thanks for your replies.

I also meant to ask, what about the age make up of these Liverpool sides?

Did they contain the odd or a quite a few ''kids''?

Why are you comparing them to us, may I ask?

They followed their own system and style to us.

Hehe, you could just google some ages if you are that curious about this question..

[The Guv'nor]

Peace of mind:p

On a different tack completely, Steve Coppell. People are saying he changed what to expect of your wingers by tracking back and helping the fullback - is this an exaggeration or were wingers really not expected to do that?:eek:

Not that its a bad thing mind, from a winger's point of view:p

[Mac_Howard]

I would just add to what Tom and DS have said that the consistency of the Liverpool performances came from the fact that they relied on teamwork and a playing style and not on spectacular individuals. They had a sprinkling of great players over the years - Dalglish being the best (I was never a fan of Barnes, particularly in an England shirt). This reliance on teamwork meant that they could withstand injuries without too much loss of performance - lose three of four players and the team would still move the ball around in much the same effective way.

In that sense they were closer to Arsenal's style, though not as adventurous, than ours.

Just a point I've made before VR - being a plc didn't really make it possible for Glazer to take over - you can buy from a private owner with far less fuss than taking a plc out of public ownership which requires that you follow all sorts of awkward rules and revelations. A private sale is done behind closed doors and almost anything goes. Do you seriously think Edwards would not have sold Utd if he'd been offered 1.5 billion dollars? :) All you can say about that is that Glazer could probably have bought it cheaper and we wouldn't have been in as much debt :rolleyes: