after the madrid games barthez didnt play. beckham didnt play much his last season, rooney didnt play vs liverpool and tottenham when he maybe could have. Ruud, keane and giggs are maybe three players that if they were just another player wouldnt command a starting place right now but they have proven their quality over the years and few coaches would take them out. The players that can be unhappy are smith and carroll and maybe phil neville who havent let anyone down and smith probably been their best player. saha and smith will now get their chances along with rooney and then well see how easily ruud gets in the team but spector is what 18-19 no need to be complaining hell get his chances. maybe the offensive aspect got kieran the starting spot tonight but theres no need to worry about spector and carrolls and browns contracts were mentioned. Carroll could command a first team spot in a few premiership teams so theres nothing wrong with him thinking about moving on. Brown is said to have asked for alot of money and utd not willing due to his injury history. Neither has anything to do with fergie
Who does Spector have to sleep with to get some playing time? Or rather, since his play was decent, who did he sleep with to not get any playing time? Does Fergie have daughters? You heard it here first.
As I have mentioned in other forums SAF picks his players based on.... A) how much they cost...for example Rooney will ALWAYS start ahead of Smith in meaningfull games...SAF has to justify the 20 + million quid of the clubs money he spent on Rooney...when such a player doesn't perform ( Veron) then he is off loaded and as much money as can be recouped is... B) did they come up through the youth system.....whats the point of having one if it doesn't on occasion produce a player or two....these players will, all things being equal ALWAYS take precedence over category C.... C) Any other F--k who came for free...Spector is in this next category...players who cost nothing...but can still play....but who will not ever play ahead of some argie who cost 6 thousand quid.... I realise some of you think I am full of it....but think about this logically...how the F--k can SAF play a Spector or Cooper ahead of Rio, Heinze,Silvestre...Rudd, Smith,Saha,Rooney...then look the board in the eye when he tells them he needs a creative midfield player, who by the by, will cost 15 million quid...? He can't....cos' if he does then the board will tell him to F off and just go back across the pond and find another Spector or Cooper for nothing....I'm telling you... THIS IS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED....IT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.... I have lived it and seen it with me own eyes and I know this to be true....
This is such an asinine argument. Ferguson, like any coach, is judged almost totally by the results his team achieves. Maybe, just maybe, Spector and Cooper aren't quite up to the standard of the players you list?
Howard made the save against Porto but gave up a rebound directly in front. IIRC, the defenders stood around while a Porto player ran up & buried the rebound. I think Ferdinand might have shielded the player or cleared the rebound. I agree the play put MU out, but I wouldn't characterize it as a major gaffe. This season I saw Tim collide with one of his own defenders, causing the ball to pop free (Bolton?). I don't know who was responsible for the collision. I'm not knocking Carroll, just saying Ferdinand was the missing link & now that he's back, the keeper's job is much easier. Some have commented that Roy has more command of the box.
Uhm, I think you saw the shortened quote. The full quote had the word, "selection" before the list of names, meaning that some of the following players would definitely play, not all. So, SAF's not a "LIAR", and it's not uncommon for editors to, uhm, edit.
i would say that fergie saw this as a chance to get some first team action to players he wouldn't normally get a chance to in a more competitive situation, he has already seen that spector can cope with the premiership and wanted to get first looks at ebanks-blake and pique against non-reserve competition. I fully expect spector to play a part in this year's carling cup run, barring injury. The reason richardson started at left back is that its is crewe, and this is really his make or break year at united to see whether he can take that next step forward.
Relax, Spector is 18. He is not going to be playing much for ManU this year and that is OK. Next year, he needs to get regular playing time but this year getting a few games and training with ManU will be positive for his development. A more realistic view is that: 1. Spector is not really going to be in the mix for World Cup 2006 for the US. His development timeline, as Peter Wilt pointed out, is a little longer. 2. Spector might turn out to be a right back or a left back but coaches like SAF and Arena are always going to be looking for that pacey player who can attack out of the back and still defend -- and will try experiments like Kieran Richardson to try and find that elusive Roberto Carlos type who can defend.
Spector is probably a bit unlucky that that argie has arguably been the best left back in the league since arriving. Fortune isn't up to it, O'Shea has been off form for a year and a half now, I'd say that Spector would have to be next in line.... not bad for a kid his age.
Sorry if we disagree. 1. Heinze, IMHO, is a great freaking player. To compare him and Spector, well, it's night and day. He is better than Spector which is why Heinze is starting and Spector is down the road. 2. Peter Wilt, like me, is entitled to his opinion. His is that Spector is a work in development and not better than what the Fire has. He may be wrong, and you could be correct [though a reading of your extolling the virtues of Clint Mathis versus the Argentinian at Wolfsburg should give most pause before relying on your opinion], but I think the opinion of someone with a track record in the business is a valid thing to post here -- it meets the standard for offering an opinion IMHO. Bottom line -- The likelihood is that Spector will not play a lot this year. At his age, that is fine and he is still on a decent track to be a great player. But while he might be able to start at some or most EPL clubs, that is not the case with a club of this level. He will get some chances in some competitions and if he does super well, or if injuries occur and he does OK, he might push himself into a more regular situation. But patience is the really the word for us.
Crewe v. United What league is this? Just bringing this up for all he Crew name detractors who think it's like Burn, Wiz, Clash.
We actually do agree. Your last post, IMO, was not so consistent with the 1st I responded to- the 1st implied that Spector is not READY, and your 2nd post helps clear that up. Yes, Heinze is starting because he is a great player AND he cost a ton of money. But not because Spector is viewed as not being able to do the job. Your comment about Clint/Wolfsburg was an unnecessary throw-away. I'd appreciate not dragging other arguments into these things- lets stay topical. Otherwise, I don't have a problem at all with what you posted. I woulda posted the same. So we don't really disagree...
There is nothing asinine about it and had you ever been involved at a high level you would know this. obviously you haven't. Man U is a PLC and SAF is responsible to the board, of course he is judged on results but ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL ( i.e. talent) the player who cost a lot of money and the player who came up through the system will get preference ahead of the player who came relatively late and cost zero. THIS IS JUST THE WAY IT IS.
FWTW, the lower portion of a big time club will always have a high turnover since only 15-18 players can get regular action while there may be 20-25 internationals and/or superhot prospects on the same roster. The "Jermaine Pennant" solution is probably the best one, allowing a player to go on a year-long loan to another team in the same league. After a year or so, it can become clear whether or not a player in question can crack the starting line-up or be in the top 15-18 with a corresponding wage. If not, the quality of the player's contribution during his loan will determine his transfer fees. But that's life for those who haven't been acquired as proven internationals for a high fee. PS. It's too bad this is not allowed in baseball, as teams like the Yankees find it very hard to break in new field players because, much like ManU/Real/Inter, it's a team full of stars. A year-long loan then to Milwaukee or Kansas City would be good for both the loaner and the loanee, as well as for the player and baseball in general. Otherwise, all we read about is a trade of a major leaguer for "minor league prospects", which are essentually an unknown commodity ... like Spector, Cooper and Simek are at this point.
That was convincing. Not. Your example stated "how the F--k can SAF play a Spector or Cooper ahead of Rio, Heinze,Silvestre...Rudd, Smith,Saha,Rooney..." Well, the answer is pretty simple - they are better and more experienced players. Heinze, who I believe Spector is in direct competition with, is a _superb_ and _experienced_ defender. Why are you going to choose Spector ahead of him? Keep pretending along with the jri's of this world that it's 'cos Heinze cost a lot of money, but you'll need a rather more rational example to have a point.
I think what england66@sbcglobal is saying is that in the long run, SAF's playing the players he spent a lot of money on will achieve better results for the team. In order to achieve good results, a manager needs to be able to spend money on players -- generally, the team that can afford to spend big money on players will do better than the team that can't. As I understand it, what england66@sbcglobal is saying is that to ensure that SAF is able to get money from the ManU board when he wants to go after a big-money player, SAF will play the big-money players over the alternatives, all other things being equal. Now, of course it's possible that in the short run, playing a back who ManU spent big money on instead of Spector might hurt ManU, but if it ensures that SAF will continue to have lots of money to spend on Ronaldos, RVNs, Smiths, and Sahas, then in the long run the policy will generate better results for ManU than a purely merit-based policy. In the end, the non-big-money player who outperforms the big-money player is an anomoly, statistically speaking (Cooper and Spector, to the extent they are outperforming big-money players, are the exceptions, not the rule). So a coach who is interested purely in results will not play the anomolous non-big-money player like Cooper or Spector if it puts at risk his long-term supply of big-money players.
Heinze is playing because he's a better and more experienced player at this point in time. Spector may be able to "do the job", but it's pretty clear that Heinze can do the job better at this point.
I realize this is his arguments, but it's an asinine argument. Firstly, he's yet to give an "all things being equal" example: his example compared a couple of young players against a group of players that are absoultely top notch talent. And it fails to take into account that continuing to play a player that cost a lot of money that's not justifying his transfer fee may actually _hinder_ his ability to ensure future money for big purchases. There's nothing worse for a manager than for all to see, including the board, a big money purchase not live up to expectations on a weekly basis. Why are they going to make more money available to a manager whose judgment has been poor both in terms of having bought the player in the first place and then continuing to play him when other options are available? And finally, managers are judged almost totally off results, and the focus is almost always short term as opposed to long term. There's not a lot of point "guaranteeing" yourself future purchases if you're out of a job.
Furthermore, each club has a budget. If you keep all your expensive internationals at high wages and release/transfer all your promising kiddies for next to nothing, who then go on to become superstars for someone else ... well, the board would be mighty PO'd with that development. Imagine having the same quality roster for 1/2 the price and letting it go to your competitors. It may not be a huge problem at Chelsea but not in most other clubs, it's a firing offense.
I've never said anything different, however, any reasonable person would also have to leave open the possibility (as a minority idea), that Spector could actually perform as well as Heinze in the position over the course of a season. After all, we are making some assumption here (Heinze better, etc.) which the evidence supports, but its not conclusive. I'm more interested in the thought (and believe) that Spector could start for a host of Premiership teams tomorrow- which is pretty remarkable at age 18 regardless of Nationality. He has a great future ahead.