Anyone remember the good ol' days of Man Utd? I've been a Chelsea fan all my life, but I still think back on the Man Utd team of the early 90s as one of the best in English football's history (excluding the late 70s Liverpool squad). My question is: what happened to to the players after they left Man U? I know Incey is at Wolves, but what happend to Paul Parker? Pallister? Kanchelskius (sp?)? Is Cantona still playing anywhere? Where the hell is Lee Sharpe? Any knowledge would be awesome...It was the only Man Utd team I've ever respected.
Lee Sharpe went to Leeds, loaned to Sampdoria, then loaned and later sold to Bradford, then went to (i think) Exeter... somewhere in Iceland now i think
I suspect that the team of today would comfortably outplay that of the early nineties but the level of play in the Premiership has improved enormously over the last 10/15 years. Even teams from the lower levels have two or three top quality players and others that would have made it into the top sides back then. Arsenal and Chelsea now have sides packed with top players. So, dominating the game in 2004 is much more difficult than it was in 1990 and Utd now are just one of three clubs with outstanding teams and the domination of any one is unlikely from here on.
Lee Sharpe's Iceland forray is over. Kanchelis got dumped by a team & then signed with another. I can't remember which ones but they were in Russia. Before then he had a short stint at Southampton. Before that Rangers. I can't remember what other clubs were involved though. Didn't Pallister play up until his United retirement? Cantona retired straight on from ManUtd. It was a bit of shock since most thought he had a couple years left in him.
Andrei Kanchelskis has been with a lot of teams after leaving United, including Everton, Rangers, Fiorentina, Dynamo Kiev, and Saudi Arabian side Al Hilal. I believe he is now with Russian club FC Saturn Moskovskaya Oblast. Mark Hughes went off to Chelsea, Everton, and Blackburn, and now manages the Wales squad. Gary Pallister moved to Boro in 1998 (I believe he was purchased by Bryan Robson, interestingly enough), and retired during the summer of 2001. Eric Cantona retired from top-flight football in 1998 and now appears in approximately 24 Nike commercials each year.
Ya, he joined Saturn Moskovskaya after leaving FC Dynamo Moskva. I don't think he every played for Moskva. I think he did something that was considered a "breach of discipline" and Moskva cut him loose. If I remember right, he played for 2 Ukranian clubs before coming to Man U, Shakhtar Donetsk and FC Dynamo Kyiv.
The early 90's side was by no means even United's best, let alone "one of English football's" best. They were a strictured, defensive, rugged unit but they were nothing remarkable. Their '99 side pisses all over the earlier incarnation, as does their more famous 60's side. Arguably, their perenially underachieving mid-80's side with Robson, Whiteside, Strachan, McGrath, Olsen and Hughes was a better side than the one which finally won the league in 1993. And stacked up againt the truly great sides in English footballing history, the early 1990's Manchester United team doesn't even make the top 10. Which, just for kicks and giggles, goes a bit like this: Liverpool 1988 Liverpool 1977 Forest 1979 United 1968 United 1999 Everton 1985 Spurs 1961 Arsenal 2004 Wolves 1955 Arsenal 1933
I know you're just throwing it out there, but you're being a bit harsh on the 1961 Spurs team. A record 31 league wins in a season, scored 115 goals (the last team ever to score more than 100) and a goal difference of plus 60. The first team in the 20th century to do the double. Surely they were better than 7th?
Well which of the six sides above them would you say that Spurs side were better than? Don't get me wrong, they were a cracking side, but they were also active in a league that was considerably less competitive than those in which those Liverpool, Forest and United sides were operating. Plus they never consolidated their position at the top in the way that all the sides I mention did. The only one of the six sides I have placed above Spurs about which that can only partially be said is the Everton one, which is why it is just one place above the Spurs side. But even that team won the title twice and added the FA Cup and European honours. I think it's worth noting that Spurs won the thing in style that one time, but they never came closer than six points to it again in the following 6-8 years that the team remained largely together. That's to take nothing away from that Spurs side as such, but I think the whole "first double" thing rather clouds people's judgement.
Well I suppose part the question is whether you are talking about individual seasons or eras. In that single season Spurs perhaps matched the achievments of any English team in history (barring the 99 treble season). If you are talking eras then Spurs reached the semifinal of the European Cup in 1962 where they lost 4-3 on aggregate to Benfica the reigning champions who defeated Real Madrid in the final. What is rarely said about that tie is that Spurs had two goals dissallowed in Lisbon and hit the woodwork 3 times in the second leg. Excuses perhaps but spurs were very close to defeating one of the all-time great teams. They also retained the FA Cup in 1962. The next season Spurs won the European cup winners cup trashing Athletico Madrid the defending champions 5-1 in the final. This was the first time any British team won a European trophy. Spurs finished 4 points off the title in 1962 and 1967, 6 points off in 1963 and 1964. The difficulty is in judging across eras how strong the league/opposition was in order to gauge quite how good each side really was. You have the Liverpool 1988 team top when of course they didn't have the opportunity to compete in Europe and prove they were the best. It would also be possible to point to the opposition faced by Liverpool, Forest and Everton to ask what was the quality of the international opposition like. The late 1970s and early 80s lacked the real quality teams ie the Real Madrid 1956-60, Benfica 1960-5, Inter Milan 1960s, Ajax 71-3, Bayern Munich 74-6, Milan 89-95. Other that is than Liverpool. The teams beaten by English opposition in the European cup finals- Borussia Moenchengladbach, FC Bruges, Malmo, SV Hamburg, Rapid Vienna, Anderlecht, AZ Alkmaar- would hardly strike fear into an opponent's heart. The obvious exceptions are FC Bayern and Real Madrid. Of course it is convenient for me to make the teams that Spurs faced to be giants compared to the minnows of the period of Liverpool's success, but i do wonder how each team would fare in the other's era.
Yeah, that's fine. No one can dispute that. But as I said, that achievement alone has been repeated by a number of other clubs before and since (albeit the "before" is way, way before). It's a "Fixed Your Post", but I'm not being arsey, it's just the simplest way of answering your point. Perhaps not, but then it's hard to conceive of any side active then, bar AC Milan, who were likely to prove better. And in domestic terms, that Liverpool side were truly peerless. That makes no sense. What you've highlighted is that European football tends to have one stand-out team which apportions itself a slice of history, an era of the game, in which they were the best. Your list above is merely incomplete - it is missing Liverpool 1977-84. The reason Liverpool did not have a "legendary" team to compete against in Europe during their period of dominance is obviously because they were the legendary team. You might as well argue that Real Madrid 1956-60 weren't that good because the era lacked a Liverpool 1978. That's an inaccurate list. For a start, Liverpool beat both Bayern Munich AND Real Madrid when winning their third European Cup in four years in 1981. Borussia Monchengladbach?? They were an awesome side in the mid-to-late 1970's. And Liverpool had beaten arguably the best French club side ever when they knocked St Etienne out in the quarters of that first European triumph. Hamburg? I don't know how old you are, but I lived in Germany at that time and had the honour of watching that side play at it's peak .... Manny Kaltz, Horst Hrubesch, the utterly magical Felix Magath, plus of course our very own "Mighty Mouse" ... they were a thunderously good side. And finally, this time of Liverpools pre-eminence coincided with the emergence of Clough's Forest, meaning Liverpool attained their domination against opposition that far outweighs the strength of domestic or European rivalry that Spurs experienced in their brief moment in the sun.
I'm surprised no one mentioned that from 1958-1968, Man-U was basically in a rebuilding phase after the plane crash..
I did in my original post, actually, but then scrapped it. Although I think it can be safely argued that their rebuilding phase was complete sometime before 1968. It's just that their triumph in the European Cup that year was the symbolic peak, the fin de siecle for the club.
It's hard to make a comparison between the Spurs side of the early 60's and the Liverpool sides of the seventies and eighties. I would say the Spurs side of 61 was a better team but injuries prevented that side from dominating the way Liverpool did. Dave Mckay was the lynchpin of that side, and it was unfortunate that he broke his leg twice at key moments in his career. It still has to be aknowledged that Spurs were one of the best sides in Europe at that point, as Comme has already pointed out dubious refereeing decisions cost us a place in the European cup final in 1962 - I suppose many clubs can claim that but to have three goals disallowed (two in first leg and one in the second) is hard to accept. It must also be pointed out the heavy pitches of that era did not best suite the Spurs style of play and particular heavy winters of that time contributed to their downfall - but still they set records in winning the league in 1961 and were one game away from winning it in 1960 and also challanged in 1962,63 and 64. They won back to back FA cups (which back then was a competition as prestigous as winning the league) and became the first British club to win in Europe. As well as losing McKay they also had to overcome the loss of the mercurial Scots wing wizard John White who was strck by lightning and killed whilst playing Golf, Blanchflower also suffered with injuries after '61. The team remains the most flmaboyant to win the English first division and made Tottenham the biggest team in the south for some time until Arsenals reamergence in the 70's. Tottenham continued to be big players in the transfer market but a succession of managers failed to get the balance Nicholson got by marrying entertaining attacking football with solid foundations which was a tragedy as the league sadly returned to the ways of boring counter attacking of football best exposed by the successful Arsenal sides of the 70's, 80's and 90's. Lastly , before you rusbbish Spurs achievments further, only three teams have won more post war trophies than Totternham - Liverpool, Man U and the scum
Sorry I can't quote in between points so this will just be one long post.i have numbered the points I am replying to. 1. It is easy to say that Liverpool 1988- could have beatern anyone other than Milan it is quite another to actually do it. We could look to Real Madrid in the last couple of years for an example of a team who line up as favourites for the CL but can't deliver. Spurs were equally dominant in their single season as Liverpool were in 88 and actually managed to accomplish the double. I know that many teams have done the double since 1961, in the last few years it has been a common occurance, but at the time it was a momentous event. 2. I have ommitted Liverpool, the great team of that era, but the point I was making is that Liverpool were perhaps not as good as their haul of trophies suggests.The difference with Real Madrid is that they did have great teams against them. The likes of Stade de Rheims, Barcelona, Inter and Benfica all match or overshadow the teams Liverpool faced. 3. I know I included Bayern and Real Madrid. It was not exactly a vintage Real Madrid era though, even though they had won three titles in a row. 4. Monchengladbach were a quality team but describing them as awesome is overdoing it slightly. I also think that considering St Ettienne to be the best French side ever is a bit much although it was a wonderful era for them. Hamburg, again a top draw team of the era, but how do they compare to the Benfica of the early 60s faced by Spurs? They are not on the same planet. That was a relatively weak era in both club and international football. An ordinary Aston Villa team who finished 11th in the first division managed to win the European Cup. 5. To compare Clough's Forest to Benfica of the early 60s is a joke. They were a good team but they had not outfield players to even compare with the likes of Eusebio, Simoes or Coluna. A Benfica team who beat the Real Madrid of Puskas, Di Stefano, Gento, del Sol and Santamaria 5-3 in the final. What was a golden era for British football was a dark age for Europe.
No one was "rubbishing" Spur's achievements. The 1961 Double-winning side was a cracking side. But there are a number that were better than them when you take everything into consideration, that's all.
If you are judging it by one season alone, then that Spurs side should be in the top three. If you are judging it what the team produced over four or five seasons, then they would drop a few places.
Just put quote tags around every section you wish to highlight. If you click "reply" to this message you will see how quotes tags should look as my message will be automatically wrapped in them. I know and I did acknowledge that it was all supposition. Again, I know that and I'm not trying to pretend it wasn't. But it's prevailing "momentousness" has to be judged in accordance with history since then. Which dilutes it by quite some measure. The point at which we began, moreover, was that domination of this kind is of a type whereby a team defines an era, and Liverpool did that. As I say, I don't know how old you are and therfore how vivid and actual your memories of this period are, but Liverpool in the late 1970's/early 1980's bestrode the game across the continent. You might have a point if Liverpool had won, say, one championship and one European Cup - indeed, it is that very logic upon which I base my rating of that Spurs side. But Liverpool didn't fail in their upward momentum from early honours to recurring triumph, like Spurs did. They won the European Cup four times in seven years. To say nothing of the UEFA Cup they won the season before this run launched and all the domestic honours they accumulated during this period. That's domination, home and abroad and that is as eloquent and irrefutable an answer to the idea that "Liverpool were perhaps not as good as their haul of trophies suggests" as can logially be made. Why do Barcelona and Stade de Rheims in the late 1950's "overshadow" St Etienne and Borussia Monchengladbach in the late 1970's? Arf ... well, I dunno how to answer that. They were the best side in Spain and a club that, to judge by your previous point, counts as "overshadowing" other sides because they are who they are. Fine, select another adjective meaning "easily amongst the best sides in world football at that time" that suits your own view more. Name a better one. Seriously. Well, we're deep into the realm of the subjective here, but to tie it back to the original point all we have is that Spurs and Liverpool beat very good teams in their day but that, as I have maintained from the outset, Liverpool did it more consistently and with greater reward. In international football?? LOL! Yeah ... for England maybe. But raise your perspective a bit and realise you are talking about the era that saw the peak of sides like the Argentina of Kempes, Ardiles, Passarella, Tarantini and Villa, the Brazil of Zico, Socrates, Falcao and Junior, the Italy of Zoff, Rossi, Scirea and Tardelli, the Germany of Breitner, Rummenigge, Schumacher, Stielike and Schuster and, of course, the fabulous France of Platini, Giresse, Six and Tigana. To say nothing of "lesser" sides like Boniek's Poland or even the Bonny Scots with Dalglish, Gemmil, Souness et al. And the vast majority of those players played in Europe, for or against the teams that took the ultimate prizes during those years. It is, in actual fact, far more logical to argue that an era of domination such as that from Ajax in the early 1970's is more likely the product of weak competition. The period that Liverpool dominated saw unprecedented competitiveness at all levels. Sure, there were shocks (and Villa's win is not one of the BTW), but that's true in any time period. I didn't. You're the one drawing that parallel. All I said was that Liverpool won major honours whilst the second-best team in Europe was 100 miles down the A56.
The period when Liverpool and other English clubs was generally a weak time forEuropean club football. How else do you explain Malmo, Notts Forest (twice) and Aston Villa winning the European cup. It was a period that included a ban on Italian clubs too. The 50s, 60,s and the current champions League are far more competitive eras
Nonsense. As to how Forest won it twice, they won it twice because of some gentlemen named Shilton, Anderson, Lloyd, Burns, Clark, Francis, Robertson, Woodcock, Birtles and O'Neill. Oh ... and Clough.