Ronaldo is the better player by far. Despite all the transfer dealings I think that the biggest mistake was changing a winning formation like the 4-4-1-1 to a dull, boring 4-5-1.
Couple things I'll say. 1. Stam was superb, but Rio is more talented. While selling Stam was a mistake, we were able to make up for it, by getting a younger, and more talented player. Stam was still probably better for United than Rio was/is/will be, but Rio will be at the club longer than Stam could have been and in the end that's a bonus. 2. On the Ronaldo/Beckham comparison/debate. DS has made a good point about it not being fair to compare Ronaldo's contribution to Beckham's simply because Ronaldo is doing it at a younger age than Becks. Also w/ regards to questions about his crossing game at Sporting, it was non-existent as he was a support striker. Beckham at his peak was perhaps as important to United as Ronaldo is now. Don't be fooled by Beckham's set pieces and Ronaldo's early season form. Ronaldo provides something that comes at a premium in world football. He is a game breaker, not markable by any one player for the course of a game and capable of taking on entire defences by himself. Does he do that consistently? No... what he does though, is provide an outlet for attack, collecting the ball in his own half and moving the ball seemingly effortlessly from defense into attack. What we lost when we lost Beckham was that quick transition. Becks would hit a pass that would spring Giggs or Cole and we'd be off. Ronaldo allows instead for anyone to spring a counter because it doesn't take a magical pass into space over the defence... it takes a pass straight to him and he's SOOOO good at beating the first 2 tacklers that defences just back off more often than not. Will Ronaldo be as influential as he possibly can at United? No... not because he can't adapt to our style, but because Wayne Rooney is a born playmaker and he's better at it than Ronaldo. We'll have a 3 pronged attack w/ a #9 and essentially 2#10s who will do their work differently. In the future I see Ronaldo and Rooney exchanging places and making life without Keane possible (he's so influential in bringing the ball up the field). Do I expect Ronaldo to play deep in CM? No, do I expect Rooney to play as a winger? Not often... but essentially, one can offer support to Ruud high up the pitch in case of a counter (this is where Ronaldo's flat out pace is going to be a factor) and the other will help move the ball into attack either by the pass (Rooney, see his pass to Park that led to Ruud's 2nd goal against Fulham) or by running the ball up into attack (both Ronaldo and Rooney are capable of this). Ronaldo learning to cross better is not an issue with me... like DS says what I want to see is more goals... I think the x-factor for him will be if he can improve his passing... once that improves we'll be unstoppoable because while Milan has Kaka and Barca has Ronaldinho, very very few teams have 2 dangerous playmakers on the ball or while passing, complemented by a lethal finisher. If selling Becks is what it takes to make the above possible, how can it be construed as mistake? Becks meant we had to have a tall, strong forward... Ronaldo's abilty to get behind defenders means he can slot the ball accross, or pull defenders wider allowing a diminutive forward the space and time he needs. Becks was razor sharp, but Ronaldo's a two edged sword.
To describe our formation during 2001/2002 as 4-5-1 is exceedingly kind I would categorise it as "How the hell do we fit this useless 28 million pound midfielder (Veron) into a midfield already made up of Keane, Scholes, Beckham and Giggs?" The result was usually to push Scholes into any position other than Veron's that could conceivably be done. He often played support striker or out left (resting Giggs) but seldom as a genuine central midfielder when Veron was on the pitch. We continuosly reverrted to 4-4-2 to rescue a game (it was Ole's best season with 17 goals). You cannot reasonably ascribe any consistent or coherent formation to our play that year We sank to our worst Premiership performance ever (at the time) - 3rd behind Arsenal and Liverpool (shame). The following year was equally messy as we continued to try to fit in Veron. The 4-5-1 became institutionalised the following year as Keane faded and we used 4-5-1 to 'support" him in this dual DM setup What period did Quieroz's first stint here cover?
I was surprised when Fergie sold Stam, but with hindsight (isn't it wonderful) and Stam's drugtaking I think that it showed Fergie's strength and integrity. I think that Veron at £30 mill was a huge mistake. Fergie was testing other formations, and £30 mill is a lot to spend on an experiment. Still you managed to recoup half of that by flogging the useless waster to Chelsea.
In response to your full post D)... I'm just after responding to that point on the Arsenal version of this thread. It was nice to recoup half the price on the Ruskies, though.
We'll see if you get off with it on a plea of temporary insanity. I love being the Kangaroo Court Snitch; I've been selling Gooners up the river since it's inception.
I think Fergie's biggest mistake, by far, was not signing a quality goalkeeper to replace Schmeichel. In order, these are the goalies that were signed from 1999 to 2003: Bosnich Taibi (seriously, what was Fergie thinking here?) Barthez Goram Carroll Ricardo Howard Had United signed Van der Sar - as Fergie tried to in 1999, before losing him to Juventus for almost the same amount that United paid for Taibi - I think United would have had an excellent shot at winning one or two more European Cups. Instead, it was 6 years of blunder after blunder.
I hadn't even remembered Goram, but didn't Taibi come before Bosnich, only to be benched after we panic-bought Bosnich like 5-6 games into the season? The real shame is that for his first year, Barthez was looking like the real deal, as potentially was Howard until the Rio suspension. I was gutted we didn't go for Robinson as part of the Rio deal (say £32mn for the two, as opposed to to the £29mn for Rio alone), or Given instead of Howard (hate to tell the Yanks I told you so).
The article I read says Bosnich was signed in June of 1999 on a free. United paid £4.5million for Taibi in August of 1999. What I recall was that Taibi was bought as Schmeichel's replacement, with Bosnich as a backup, until it was discovered that Taibi was possibly the worst keeper on the planet.
to be fair, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that Barthez and Howard wouldn't work out - they seemed fair bets - but mistaken in hindsight. Dumping Stam was ludicrous from the outside - but to what extent did he challenge SAF's authority - it may have been untenable inside the camp. Veron might have been a stroke of genius - but he didn't really adapt at chelsea either - a lot to pay - but i wouldn't call it an experiement - Veron was a proven performer at the highest level. I think the failure to find midfield replacements for the golden generation is his major failing. You have more talent up front than you ever had. but the engine of the side is much weaker
I wouldn't call Barthez a total failure as some brand him. He's probably been the best of a generally bad crop, but overall he was reliable, just a bit erratic and reckless. I don't think Howard was ever expected to start so soon, and he's really been on a rollercoaster ride ever since joining. I think even us Americans thought he was a strange purchase, then he looked so good for his first six months before dropping off the table. Really a strange scenario for him.
Barthez was the best of the bunch, and a good shot stopper to be sure. But his wacky adventures out of the box were ill-timed and cost United several important games. I also think that Barthez's inconsistencies made the entire defense feel shaky.
1. Good points 2. Fair shout 3. Excellent point, but the reason it was a bad decision was because in Scholes, Keane, Giggs and Beckham United had the world's best and most balanced midfield. Spending money on Veron at that point was stupid. 4. Meh, Keane needs to be replaced but that's no easy task and I don't think its really cost us alot thus far. Giggs isn't assured a starting place and Beckham's been effectively replaced. Not finding the Keane replacement is the hardest task of the entire midfield and its not like he's not tried, he just hasn't been successful yet. Scholes is not in need of replacement soon and between Rooney, Rossi and Jones we've probably got him covered.
3. I agree it was stupid on balance. 4. Yet, your midfield is now demonstrably weaker. maybe "greatest failing" would be more accurate to describe this rather than mistake
4. is it really? or have more teams started playing 451 and sitting back? Do we still not complete more passes than any other team or have as many or more shots than the other leaders? Don't we possess the ball more than our opponents by and large? The midfield is not "weaker" due to aging, but rather a lack of cohesion and chemistry that we had when everyone knew the system and knew where they had to be. Our midfield conceedes much less than it did back then and that's partly due to the way that we play now and we may appear to be weaker because of how cautious we've become. The stories of our demise have been greatly exagerated. United has had 2 dissapointing years in a row. But few teams would have done better w/ our injury/suspension situation and it should be noted that we were in 2 FA Cup finals and won one, although God knows it should have been 2. We've also lost in the CL to the last 2 champs (once unjustly).
yes. previosuly you used to tear people apart with your midfield. You attackers were merely OK or effective. The magic was giggs, keane (butt), scholes and beckham. now teams fear your front 3 - rooney/ronaldo/VN your midfield holds far fewer terrors than previously. I agree the stories of your demise are OTT.
Its a different style of play... if we were to stick to a 442 w/ Giggs, Ronaldo Keane and Scholes or Keane and Fletcher we'd be pretty damn good going forward. The thing is, every team will have a shift in strength from time to time unless they can keep top class players on the bench. As midfield peaks, you rebuild the defence, when the midfield is on its way down you can't replace your strikers at the same time.
Sorry let me qualify Obviously VN/Rooney are world beater quality. It doesn't ge much better. Andy Cole/Yorke were not really in that category were they?
I figured he was talking about our strikers in the youth system when we brought up Giggs, Butt, Scholes and Becks.. he could not have been talking about Yorke/Cole Teddy/Ole... hell, Yorke/Cole might have been our best ever strike pairing, if Ruud and Rooney ever get that kind of chemistry and understanding we could score 100 goals in the league comfortably.
lol... see my post above this... Cole and Yorke had a telepathic link and Yorke had more balls than all non-Cantona strikers to have played at United he was such a cheeky bastard.