10/09: Manchester rivalry debate - me, Mullock, Custis etc.

[Chris in London]

One of the points I made the other night was that Liverpool-Utd rivalry is a modern thing and established by Fergie. Basically, if you look at it sensibly, Fergie's ambition in Scotland was to break up the Glasgow duopoly and make Aberdeen a credible force. When in England he saw LFC as the team with all the success. So it was inevitable that to be the most successful you have to challenge the best.

To me the LFC-Utd rivalry was a little one sided with the least successful side desperate to overcome the successful one. Then that rivalry became stronger as Utd equalled and then past liverpool's domestic record.

In the 30s Arsenal were City's main rivals, attracting greater crowds for Arsenal City games than Manc derbies. In the 50s Wolves were Utd's rivals, and in 60s Leeds were the Reds main rivals. Today Chelsea are City's you could argue, BUT that should never downplay the Manc derby. Let's be honest Manc derbies have hurt Fergie more than his rivalry with LFC.

The Liverpool-Utd rivalry rid not exist before the late 70s and wasn't particularly bitter then. The 2 teams have often been allies for various reasons. These moments include - 1915 the match fixing which meant that Utd stayed up when the 2 teams fixed a game; the busby-Shankly-paisley connection which meant they were close; the early 20th century agreement between them re shirts (basically, they lobbied the League to prevent teams from wearing anything but red or white; their idea being that home teams must all wear red and away white!) and so on.

If the LFC-MUFC derby was this great big historical rivalry going back to ship canal etc then why were their games not intense affairs pre 70s? Why weren't City and Everton bitter rivals when they were both challenging in early 1900s and 1930s? Why were LFC and MUFC so close?

I wanted to talk more about this the other night, especially about the match fixing, but United weren't really a threat or challenge in the debate. Maybe next year we'll stir things up with a mcfc-Chelsea rivalry debate. Perhaps we could say this goes back to the industrial revolution, and link it with "what Manchester does today....". Actually, we could easily claim a long rivalry with Chelsea, bringing up several grudge games over the decades, linking back to our Div 2 battles in 1983-84 and the fmc in 1986. That would be as credible as the LFC-MUFC history!

Hi Gary.

Did Simon Wadsworth have any sort of cogent answer to this? I mean I appreciate that he was probably mischief making/trolling/shit stirring when he said 'City aren't our rivals, Liverpool and Barca are' but that seems to me to be a simple continuation of Ferguson's 'don't acknowledge them, belittle them' approach. Did he, in other words, have any serious answer to the point that the Liverpool-United rivalry was taken to new levels by Ferguson, and then only after he had got the upper hand?

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

Er… golden era? Is that quite the way you wanted to put it?
Anyway, on that point, I'll tell you this. There were only two grounds in the country where I ever felt seriously in danger. One was West Ham. We know about that. They were organised for violence.
The other was, most definitely, Anfield.

You obviously never went to the old den

I'm 6ft 3, can handle myself and i'm not scared of anyone..but it was missing link shit down there

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Everyone spoke well, particularly (and don't tell anyone I said this) Neil Custis who was remarkably unbiased and rational, that may have been a case of him 'adapting to his audience', but even his pro Mancini stance was not without some merit.

I think Neil Custis is usually fairly reasonable about us. It's his brother who takes every opportunity to knock us IMO.

 

[Gary James]

Hi Gary.

Did Simon Wadsworth have any sort of cogent answer to this? I mean I appreciate that he was probably mischief making/trolling/shit stirring when he said 'City aren't our rivals, Liverpool and Barca are' but that seems to me to be a simple continuation of Ferguson's 'don't acknowledge them, belittle them' approach. Did he, in other words, have any serious answer to the point that the Liverpool-United rivalry was taken to new levels by Ferguson, and then only after he had got the upper hand?

Simon is a Manc red who knows exactly what the history is. We didn't debate it much because, in truth he knows the real situation. At last year's debate I was neutral and chaired the event and we had another red Daniel Harris on the panel. He has a completely different take, believing everything Fergie says as gospel, whereas Simon was more critical of Utd than the rest of us. He reminded me of real reds like some of my relatives - the ones who were born and raised in Manchester and remember Div 2 etc. Daniel is a red because of some convoluted story involving his dad, and he of course has only know Utd under Fergie.

Real reds know, modern reds don't. Maybe we'll be like that in the future when we talk of our great rivalry with LFC - much more important than the derby ;-) hmm!

I think if you're a red who has never lived in Manchester and come from a family without Manc roots then I think it's difficult to grasp. The other way around works because, let's face it, most football fans have a reason to hate united, so it's not as obvious, but if you're a modern, non-Manc red you probably will never grasp the Derby's true significance. Their loss I guess.

 

[Bozzie]

Simon is a Manc red who knows exactly what the history is. We didn't debate it much because, in truth he knows the real situation. At last year's debate I was neutral and chaired the event and we had another red Daniel Harris on the panel. He has a completely different take, believing everything Fergie says as gospel, whereas Simon was more critical of Utd than the rest of us. He reminded me of real reds like some of my relatives - the ones who were born and raised in Manchester and remember Div 2 etc. Daniel is a red because of some convoluted story involving his dad, and he of course has only know Utd under Fergie.

Real reds know, modern reds don't. Maybe we'll be like that in the future when we talk of our great rivalry with LFC - much more important than the derby ;-) hmm!

I think if you're a red who has never lived in Manchester and come from a family without Manc roots then I think it's difficult to grasp. The other way around works because, let's face it, most football fans have a reason to hate united, so it's not as obvious, but if you're a modern, non-Manc red you probably will never grasp the Derby's true significance. Their loss I guess.

Other than his, clearly tongue in cheek, opening comments regarding the rivalry between the clubs I was quite taken aback by how critical Simon Wadsworth was of Ferguson/The Glazers/Van Gaal. Seemed like the kind of red you could almost enjoy talking football with over a couple of pints. I wasn't there last year so obviously don't know how it went but I felt as though the 'rivalry debate' never actually got off the ground on Tuesday for lots of reasons, partially down to there being far more Blues than Reds in attendance. It's probably not an option given the nature of the series of events but personally I thought a Q & A session on all things City would have been more interesting with maybe an ex player on the panel to compliment yourself, Simon Mullock and a media representative. If there was sufficient interest they could host a similar event for Man U fans. Despite that, it was however an enjoyable evening.