Who is the greatest player to have ever worn the red shirt?

Hello again ...


No offense but I just don't find Beckham to be the best player in the MLS. My opinion is there are younger more well rounded players' in the league than he. That was proven when the Galaxy played New York. There's a 17 year old American kid playing for New York who is mature beyond his years with first class skills' that just stole the show so to say. It was not just a once flash in the pan type of performance for this kid either. He's playing like that in every game he plays' in. His teammate Angel is another one I feel that plays' better than Beckham & Blanco who plays' for the Fire but again it's just my opinion.


Nobody which includes myself can deny that Beckham has trus passion for the game. Tom, if what you say is true & his long range goals' are to work with kids' here then that's a good thing as I think more kids' here play the sport than in any other country in the world. I know as I coach & run my own academy so at the youth level it's very healthy it just needs' to be pointed in the right direction. It's the people around Beckham I really don't care for as I think they are in it for the fast buck & they have overblown things' to the point where it's overkill. I just don't what to see history repeat it'self here like they did with the NASL. They brought Pele over for an insane amount of money & it opened the flood gates for former European & Latin American stars' all demanding & in most cases' getting near the same wages' & it all went belly up.


Tom & I are clear on most issues & we agree to disagree from time to time. No harm, no foul. As for the other person here I'm not getting off telling anyone anything beyond my opinions so relax please, Thank You. You happen to find Beckham to be a United great & I do not. This is not war, it's a forum where everyone here post their thoughts' & opinions. Everyone have a good day!

 

I'm changing my vote to Jovan Kirovski, clearly the greatest of Fergie's Fledglings.

 

With Beckham, at least to me it seemed, it just started coming undone for him at United after 1999 with his marriage to a Spice Girl and his love of the limelight. Everyone will tell you how hard Beckham worked then and still does now - but all the papparazzi and after-work stuff, EVEN if his workrate was still great, had to irk Fergie. If you read Beckham's book, you'll see incidents that SAF just came after Beckham for stuff, like claiming Becks was in Barcelona one day when he was actually in Manchester. That's just one side of the story - but even then you knew that Fergie disapproved of Beckham's lifestyle.

Then there's the club v country issue - I don't even know what my opinion on Beckham regarding that is. He did seem to play harder for England once he had the armband - even the press here in the States were claiming that Becks was country>club when he recently was injured for weeks, then suited up for 45 minutes when McLaren was in town, only to sit back on the bench again.

If it could happen all over, I wish he would have just kept his head down and played his game like Scholes and the older Giggs. Obviously what you did off the pitch, as long as you worked hard in training, should be your own business - I mean, can anything Beckham ever did be worse than having an orgy with prostitutes? But when your manager is SAF, everything counts. Beckham saw players like Ince, Stam, etc leave because of disputes - departures that maybe shouldn't have happened (Fergie even said today that selling Stam was a bit questionable on his part) but did anyway. He should have buckled down - he would have still been here, or would have left on better terms. One of the hardest working players in the game - he didn't have as much talent as Giggs or Scholes IMO, but he worked so hard at perfecting the talents he did have that it made up for it.

 

Good post.

 

Again very good post. As much as I like to joke around ...(Nothing wrong with that!) & maybe push a few buttons' now & then ...( As you might have guessed I can be a sarcastic SOB!) I still have a burning passion & support Man United like most of you here. Also like most of you I grew up playing Football & went beyond the rec level. I'm still rather new to the forum here but I can see there are quite a few people here that know what they are talking about so that being said I'll lighten up with my somewhat twisted sense of humor with you particular posters' ...(You know who you are!) As for the lookie loos' & storm trooper posters' well ... No mercy! You broght up Scholes & Giggs & you have a good point. Both these players' come from the same era as Beckham & are still very much a vital part of the club. Somebody here said nobody in the world can cross the ball better than Beckham. Though I have to admit his crossing is top notch I would have to say Scholes crossing is on par with his & as a great overall player Scholes is much more ballanced. Same goes for Giggs.


Both these players', in particular Scholes keep a very low profile off the pitch. They won't be seen in movies' or plugs' for this or that as they don't have what would be considered ... That look & image but then who really cares' anyway? They ar both great players' & great United players'! You are right about Fergie being a very tough person to please. He's from the old school & might be one of the only old school manager's in the sport that still is able to function & get good results' at the top level. Think about it. Since Sir Alex has been at the helm of United he's always had, even to this day big name, world class players' under his wing & unlike alot of clubs' where the players' seem to tell the manager to jump through the hoop we don't really see too much of that at United. Fergie seems to have all the players' respect & the one's that don't get with the program won't last long. What really happened between Fergie & Beckham we will never really know. I choose not to believe all the trash that has been spewed about in Football & sporting rags'. Maybe it's a case where Beckham's personality & will was on par with Fergie's which caused them to clash, but then again who really knows?


We all have our favorite United players'. Nothing wrong with that. I have my favorite's from different era's & though Beckham's a much better player then I could ever hope to be he's not one of them. From the Busby Babes right up to the present I have many Former & present United players' I admire & enjoy watching play Football. I'm just glad somebody here mentioned Scholes & Giggs as both deserve credit for being great players'.

 

Oh dear .............. that's a sweeping statement for somebody to make ............ i know where my money would lie in a game between those two sides!

Funnily enough, I was back in UK for the last game of last season against West Ham and on the Friday evening at our dinner, the conversation got around to a remark that Peter Schmeichel had made when there was a comparison made by a journalist between the 1968 team and the 1999 team. Schmeichel said that the 1999 team would have scored double figures against 1968 team. On the Sunday, I was talking to Paddy Crerand at Old Trafford before the game and mentioned this remark. I had to laugh, Paddy said; "Well yeah, maybe. But he has to remember, we are all in our 60's now and our legs have gone a little."

I know that I am biased, but for me, the 1957 team was the best team that Ihave seen from United in the time that i have been following them.

 

Tom, you have to factor in physical preparations of players these days and back then. It's really incomparable - players nowdays are faster, stronger, have more efficient practice routines, have personal trainers and gyms, have all the technology for studying the game, etc. If you factor all of that in and compare it directly to teams in 50s and 60s, there is really no comparison. I mean - Puskas at the time was considered to be the best player in the world. And he was about 5'8, 250 lbs, one footed, and still kept scoring at a ridiculous pace. These days someone with these characteristcis probably wouldn't make a 3rd division team, let alone any top level club.
So with all due respect to older teams, if you factor in other things besides talent, you have to understand where Schmeichel was coming from.

 

What!?

 

I factor in what I have actually seen. It's not incomparable. Yes, players are well prepared today both physically and mentally (just as they were all those years ago) and great strides have been made in sports medicine, equipment, stadiums, playing surfaces etc - and rightly so. Yes, the game maybe just marginally quicker today than what it was, but that's not down to the players imho, it's down to the pristine surfaces that players play on today and also the type of ball that's used today which has a coating that prevents moisture getting to the leather. It's also why the bloody thing moves about so much in the air and is such a nightmare for 'keepers, and zips about upon the surface.

You do those old players such an injustice with your statements, especially Puskas whom I presume that you have never ever actually seen play in the flesh? Puskas was never anywhere near the grossly exaggerated type of weight that you state, and for your information, was not as one footed as many people made out. I saw him play many times and can assure you, he'd have been a huge star in today's modern game.

It saddens me today to read stuff like this. It's a complete myth that players are much fitter, faster, etc today than they were - again, I can assure you, that's not quite true. Are you trying to tell me that players like Charlton, Best, Law, Edwards, Taylor, Finney, Mathews, Moore, Hurst, Peters, Shackleton, Lofthouse, Ball, Bell, etc etc would struggle in today's game and were not fit? My own feelings are that today's players would struggle to perform in the conditions and on the surfaces that those guys had to play on back then. Try telling people that have been left trailing in the wake of Best etc that they weren't quick!

Players in the game today are cossetted and get away with murder. There is no obstruction law of any sort today, tackling in the game is virtually non-existent, the tackle from behind has gone, goalkeepers cannot be challenged. Some of the stuff I see going on in penalty areas these days at set pieces from free kicks and corners amazes me - the grabbing, pulling, obstructing etc which always results in the attacking players being penalised and never a defender.

The game is hyped more today than it ever has been and this came with the formation of the Premiership, and to hear a lot of people talk these days, you would think that football only began in 1992. Film archive of those old players does them a great disservice because of the poor filming technology that was around beack then.

I played the game professionally in a number of countries around the world, and at a decent level, and I know what I saw and what I see today.

 

That is nonsensical imho - so what you are saying is that players like Di Stefano, Pele, Didi, Garrincha, Kubala, Schiaffino, Sivori, Charles, Edwards, Mathews, Finney, Beckenbauer, Eusebio, Sekularac, Kopa, Gento, Julihno, Maldini, Liedholm, Fontaine, Suarez, Fachetti, Mazzola, etc etc would have just buckled under today's players? That's laughable to say the least. It makes me smile just thinking about it. Many players today are lauded with labels like "world class", "legend" when they are in fact anything but. I'm just so glad that I have not only witnessed the game as it is today.

 

Gotta agree with Tom on this one. How could you possibly compare 2 separate generations together like that? I think it's impossible, personally. There are definitely players on both sides that could have cut it in the other generation - a player like R9 or Rooney could have played back then. But at the same time, the players Tom mentioned, or at least a lot of them could have held their own now. To say that players in our generation would "dominate the shit" out of the past is just ridiculous.

Isra, how the hell do players like Robinho, Ricardinho, Adriano, Nani even make your list? They are barely relevant nowadays! Tom is right, we toss around the "world class" tag way to easily these days.

 

Any sensible debate comparing players over eras has to adjust for changes like equipment, playing conditions, training methods, etc. (This goes for any sport.) If the United legends of the past were playing today, they would be playing on those beautiful pitches, with that beautiful ball and would have their trainers and chefs and so on. There is no reason to denigrate players of bygone eras just because the game looks so primitive in scratchy, black and white newsreel footage.

 

Is there a reason for the alliteration?

Definitely agree.

 

I'm sorry but this just may be the dumbest assessment I've read on this website. I've seen a lot of dummy statements over the years but this takes the cake.

How can you possibly think this? I don't even think Stud would agree with this. The tough conditions players were under back then only made them that much better. Many argue that players today are far more technical but that isn't neccessarily true. The only change came in fitness and speed. I'd even go on to argue (And this is from loads and loads of archival footage I've seen and from older fans I've talked to) that players like Cruyff, Beckenbauer, DiStefano, Puskas, Kopa, Fontaine, Gento, and Walter were all more technically gifted than a lot of the players you mentioned above. In fact the level of quality football had decreased dramatically since the 70's - and this is from a 22 year old who grew up with 90's football and on. Whenever I watch matches from the 60's or 70's for example and even into the 80's, the quality level is evident. Nowadays only a handful of teams are able to play what can be considered quality (even the term has changed because of it) football, but whenever I look back at some European matches form twenty years ago up to Bundesliga matches between 1. FC Köln and Fortuna Düsseldorf - and if I had to choose which I'd watch, there's no doubt in my mind what it would be.

 

I think so much is different between the 2 times - just so much. From the way capitalization and money have taken over the game so much as to affect the way teams play (my opinion anyway), to the quality of equipment, pitch, even the shirts players wear, and the amount of care/pampering given to players these days, etc - it's a completely different game now.

This can be taken 2 ways though - some older people in the game see this, and maybe do not give players in the present their just dues. Just because the past had tougher conditions, etc., doesn't mean that NO MODERN PLAYER can ever be as good as the likes of Puskas, Di Stefano, Cruyff. We can't sell short the few real class players that exist these days in the name of the past.

Just at the same time, ridiculous comments like those above must be ignored as well. Players like Nani, Tevez, Ricardinho (this one really still has my laughing at work) are insignficant blips in the all time history of football. And to say that they would dominate old teams would be nonsensical as well. There aren't too many player of class these days - I'd say Raul, Zidane, Giggs, players of that stature over the past decade or so, but not alot, that would be able to run with Di Stefano, Puskas, etc.

That's why I just stay away from comparing the 2 generations at all. It never can possibly account for the thousands of factors.

 

Obviously players nowadays can be as great or all times, up there with the aforementioned. Sometimes however, I do think what those older players would be like if they had all the advantages of modern players and similary you could reverse this scenario.

 

The only thing to keep in mind, with all due respect to the previous generations, is that its normal to prefer the generation that played when you first became a fan and revere them more as time goes on. One day we'll be the veteran fans arguing about how the game was different at the beginning of the century and how Rooney and Ronaldo would not be out place on the 2025 United team.

 

Exactly. It's nearly impossible for someone to be objective about this. It really all depends on the time you watched the game. When someone asks me who I think the best United player of all time is, the first names that even cross my mind - not even in terms of greatest, just the term United player - are Giggs, Scholes, Keano, and co. Then I can reach back to the few clips I've seen of Best. But for me to say that Duncan Edwards was the greatest, even though it may be true, is hard, as it's completely on faith. All the firsthand accounts in the world (even if they are as pleasing to read as yours, Tom) can't beat actually seeing a player.

It's really an impossible discussion to have.

 

That's fair and it makes sense, but I was born in the 80's and I'm arguing for players from up to three decades before that. It's very possible one can be objective about this, as long as he/she is properly informed and educated on the subject. I think it's fair to say Tom knows a bit more about it than israbeckham.

 

No question. I wasn't having a go at you, I was only pointing out that every generation reveres their own and laments a golden age that has just passed. No doubt when Tom was growing up there was talk of former legends who were better than the Babes.