United Thread 2015/16

[jacko74]

I'd much rather have a challenging season than a procession, especially if the challenge is from united. Winning the league in such circumstances is far more satisfying.

We have the best squad of players. If we stay mentally robust we'll win it. If we don't, then we don't deserve to. It's completely down to us. That's good enough for me.

Some of the white flag waving on here is utterly pitiful. I do wonder how some posters cope with problems that come their way in the course of their normal lives. Not very well, or not at all, I'll hazard

I'm more than happy to have a challenging season, I'd just prefer it if the challenge came from a team playing open, attractive and honest football rather than a team that gets by on a combination of endless good luck, opposition players bottling it and favourable decisions from intimidated or sycophantic officials.

 

[dubblue]

I'd much rather have a challenging season than a procession, especially if the challenge is from united. Winning the league in such circumstances is far more satisfying.

We have the best squad of players. If we stay mentally robust we'll win it. If we don't, then we don't deserve to. It's completely down to us. That's good enough for me.

Some of the white flag waving on here is utterly pitiful. I do wonder how some posters cope with problems that come their way in the course of their normal lives. Not very well, or not at all, I'll hazard

I agree with all bar the pitiful bit. City fans I know are all the same and fear the worst regardless of what players we have or don't have. It's tough to rid yourself of the constant goading and put downs we all have had over the last 20-30 years and perhaps longer. It doesn't irritate me as I can be the same at times, I know I prefer the way City fans are to the rest. To be cocky and confident at all times just wouldn't suit us.

 

[shallyman]

You're literally arguing with the foremost and most recognised authority about the history of Manchester football and saying "well I don't remember it like that".

The arrogance it demands for you to do this is literally staggering.

It's a bit bizarre, I grant you. But imagine someone saying to you that you didn't go to the primary school you attended, when you know you did, and you didn't have that teacher, when you know you did, or you didn't wear that uniform or sing those songs, the songs you still sing now...None of this really happened because somebody has written in a book that your school didn't exist until a decade later. Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, I must have remembered it all wrong."

We didn't have that dart board in the garage with Emyln Hughes on it. Or a profound hatred of Souness, Rush, Dalglish, Sammy Lee..shit I could type forever. We didn't have a song about the death of Bill Shankly. And we didn't cheer on the opposition in their European cup finals, or feel sick to the stomach when they won.

As some posters on here have alluded to and other journalists of the time have mentioned, United were always the glamour club that were name dropped and given the prestige, whereas Liverpool were successful on the football pitch. They wanted the credit that we had and we wanted their success. For that reason a resentment grew and it festered. Yes, Alex Ferguson cranked it up a few notches, but as David Meek mentioned in the documentary, he was merely tapping into something that was already there.

 

[shallyman]

Okay, let's deal in facts... Yes Manchester & Liverpool are rival cities. There are many reasons for this with each city's stance during the American civil war playing a part, as well as the rapid development of Manchester and its challenge, in terms of northwest dominance to Liverpool etc.

This rivalry was not obvious in footballing terms until the modern era. Sure Manchester clubs and Liverpool clubs were rivals but not at the level of a true derby, whether that be in either city.

More facts... If the Utd-LFC game has always been perceived as a derby, then why isn't this obvious in contemporary evidence, either in match reports or in actual match attendance? Take a look at the early 1950s when MUFC enjoyed a golden age in terms of success, with crowds growing and attention on the club reaching a new high. This was also a period when Liverpool reached a FAC final. What were the crowds? What? A little over 20k at old Trafford (which could hold about 65-70k) for such an important ‘derby’ game in 1952-53 when Utd were reigning champions as well? Surely not? Was this a blip?

What about 1953-54? 26k at OT! MUFC's 3rd lowest league crowd of the season – but this is ‘the’ game!

What about 1951? What? LFC at MUFC attracted 34k, Utd's 8th lowest league crowd of the season. Surely not? What about Everton, after all they are also a Merseyside club so the rivalry between Utd and Everton must have generated an incredibly high crowd – it was c.29k! How can that be when Manchester-Liverpool are such great rivals?

I could go on, but this is a perfect example of how modern day rivalries may not have been what the media and others claim they are.

As Prestwich Blue stated, why weren't City- EFC games perceived in the way you claim MUFC-LFC were? City and Everton were the first successful sides from their cities and did have several grudge matches in early 1900s, however when City won FAC in 1904 Everton proudly displayed the trophy at Goodison for all to see when the 2 sides met. Everton stressed their support for Lancashire's success!

As for the comment about managers… I’ve never found anything from Busby talking about the great ‘derby’ with LFC. He talked of facing his old club etc. but never spoke about the game in terms if a derby, unlike his comments on the Manchester game of course. Busby had understood Manc football from his arrival, so if it has always been seen as a true derby then why didn't utd’s great manager and former LFC player mention it? Surely he'd have talked of the great ‘derbies’ he played in?

LFC-MUFC is a special fixture, just like City-CFC is becoming, but so are MUFC-lufc and MUFC-Arsenal. Those sort of games get hyped up and have an edge, but they're not as significant throughout history as the Manc derby. Utd’s footballing rivals in 50s were Wolves, City's in 30s were Arsenal, but that doesn't mean those games remain more significant than the Manc derby

Hi Gary, I'm not disputing any of your facts above, but I'm not really talking about the 1950's as I wasn't around at the time. I do know that the rivalry spiraled in the 1970's and 80's. The whole reason this 'debate' has come about is because Stony posted that Alex Ferguson created the rivalry with Liverpool, and I said that simply was not true. He then used your book to back up his argument. In the documentary that I posted it was mentioned that in the 50's and early 60's there was little in the way of footballing rivalry between the clubs, fans and players...but then things changed. There is archived footage of Tommy Docherty and Ron Atkinson talking about the games with Liverpool being fierce battles on the pitch and an evil atmosphere in the stands. I can relate to all of that because I was there at the time. This was prior to Alex Ferguson, and this is my point.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm more than happy to have a challenging season, I'd just prefer it if the challenge came from a team playing open, attractive and honest football rather than a team that gets by on a combination of endless good luck, opposition players bottling it and favourable decisions from intimidated or sycophantic officials.

I'm not so sure. I reckon beating dull, turgid, 'anti-football' to the title has a particular charm.

 

[BigOscar]

As long as they keep up their "every shot goes in" strategy, they could do alright, but as soon as that luck runs out they are in serious trouble as if anything they've actually gone backwards from last year, from an attacking standpoint. They are starting to look a lot like TT's incredibly negative Dutch side at the WC, who just pass it around aimlessly, keep it tight at the back and just hope the ball happens to go in the net at some point, but they don't have an Arjen Robben to single handedly destroy teams. They are playing like a side who could easily go five games without scoring

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I agree with all bar the pitiful bit. City fans I know are all the same and fear the worst regardless of what players we have or don't have. It's tough to rid yourself of the constant goading and put downs we all have had over the last 20-30 years and perhaps longer. It doesn't irritate me as I can be the same at times, I know I prefer the way City fans are to the rest. To be cocky and confident at all times just wouldn't suit us.

You say the last 20-30 years, but you know the takeover was in 2008 don't you? I think there is something to be mildly pitied in people who have an ability to completely ignore logic when considering things that are important to them. It's the same for united fans who talk of the Sheikh 'getting bored'.

City fans have absolutely no reason to fear united anymore. An absence of fear founded in logic is not arrogance.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Hi Gary, I'm not disputing any of your facts above, but I'm not really talking about the 1950's as I wasn't around at the time. I do know that the rivalry spiraled in the 1970's and 80's. The whole reason this 'debate' has come about is because Stony posted that Alex Ferguson created the rivalry with Liverpool, and I said that simply was not true. He then used your book to back up his argument. In the documentary that I posted it was mentioned that in the 50's and early 60's there was little in the way of footballing rivalry between the clubs, fans and players...but then things changed. There is archived footage of Tommy Docherty and Ron Atkinson talking about the games with Liverpool being fierce battles on the pitch and an evil atmosphere in the stands. I can relate to all of that because I was there at the time. This was prior to Alex Ferguson, and this is my point.

Liverpool/Everton (loved each other) and Manchester City/Utd (hated each other) Mancs despised Liverpool/Everton and always did back then...we all got attacked by scousers back then.....stanleys etc....wasn't pleasant.

......your Derby was always with City not Liverpool.........the scouse /Manc hate was a different thing and was usually about off field activities

 

[MCFCTrick]

The very meaning of a 'derby' means Rags v Dippers cannot have been, nor ever will be a derby ... end of.

 

[shallyman]

The very meaning of a 'derby' means Rags v Dippers cannot have been, nor ever will be a derby ... end of.

I'm not disputing the terminology or history of the word 'derby' or when it was even linked to a Liverpool V United game. For all I know Sky created it in 1999??? What I'm disputing is this statement below.

The rivalry with Liverpool was manufactured by the gpc, it didn't exist in the 70s/80s.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I'm not disputing the terminology or history of the word 'derby' or when it was even linked to a Liverpool V United game. For all I know Sky created it in 1999??? What I'm disputing is this statement below.

you tried to wind us up constantly by trying to make us insignificant Ikkle City and making Liverpool your main rivals

It was pathetic red shit bollocks to wind mates up at work as usual

Now it's biting you sad red cunts on the arse big time

 

[superseiyan]

Two things about this insipid lot:

- De Gea : ( . Very ominous for him to be back. That Southampton game was ridiculous. F*ck you Real Madrid for not going all the way through.

- Martial. I'm actually not reading the newspapers because I don't think I can bear to witness the fapping over "the next Henry" (didn't Jijjjazzy and Macheda have very good debuts too? Not every promising teen is Ronaldo).

 

[superseiyan]

They'll probably beat Sunderland then they'll lose their next 4 league games IMO.
Sunderland-h
Arsenal-a
Everton-a
Us-h
Palace-a

A trip to Moscow in between Everton and us as well.

LOL at soft-as-butter Arsenal beating the rags. The four games after are a much better bet for the rags to drop points, they'll do Arsenal over.

 

[petrusha]

Head above the parapet time here - I'm going to side with Shallyman. IIRC, the United/Liverpool rivalry started to spice up a bit in the late seventies, when Liverpool started to win the league more regularly (they won it three times in the 12 years in the top flight under Shankly, then 8 times in 11 seasons from 1975/6 onwards). It became quite nasty from both sides pretty quickly, as well. The Manc derby was different in that it was the game that you'd get merciless stick for at school if you lost, and certainly in the late seventies, it was a huge event on both sides. But then, the match could definitely go either way, City had more Wembley appearances and the like through the seventies, and by the time we were averaging home gates of over 40K between 76 and 78, that probably meant that the Manchester region had fairly equal numbers of match-going fans for both clubs. (United's gates were bigger than ours, but even then, they used to draw a lot of out-of-towners).

What really turned things round was that City were so poor for so long. After our victory in the derby at Maine Road in February 1981, we won one more competitive fixture against United in the next 21 years and 9 months. After we went down in 1983, we played outside the top flight for nine of the next 20 seasons, so for nearly 50% of the time, there wasn't even a proper Manchester derby, just the odd friendly or testimonial. In the light of that, it's hardly surprising that the occasion lost its edge and United fans started to regard Liverpool as the bigger game - and it happened very quickly after we failed to offer any meaningful derby challenge.

If, over the coming years, we have City and United competing with each other in the title race and having more major Cup games against one another while Liverpool predominantly finish in the Europa League places, things will probably start to change. However, it will take some time, I'd have thought. We certainly always got to them a bit even when we were shit and they were winning everything in sight. Any protestations that they saw us irrelevant to them were given the lie by things like that banner, while you could often hear lots of signing about us when they played in one of their rare (arf!) televised games. But I think we're deluding ourselves a little if we suggest that the derby has, in the last couple of decades or a bit more, generally been the game even local United fans would regard as their biggest.

Can't say it matters to me anyway. We're not the City of old any more and they know they've got a hell of a fight if they want to be the more successful club in Manchester these days. That's what counts for me now.

 

[Matty]

Two things about this insipid lot:

- De Gea : ( . Very ominous for him to be back. That Southampton game was ridiculous. F*ck you Real Madrid for not going all the way through.

- Martial. I'm actually not reading the newspapers because I don't think I can bear to witness the fapping over "the next Henry" (didn't Jijjjazzy and Macheda have very good debuts too? Not every promising teen is Ronaldo).

De Gea will be an excellent performer for them this season, of that I've no doubt. However I'd be very surprised indeed if he didn't leave next summer for Real. United have done a good deal in getting him signed up to a contract, probably a degree of "if you don't sign then we'll go with Romero this season, and you'll be watching the Euros from your couch" about it, but equally De Gea will have had a release clause that Real are more than prepared to pay included also.

Martial could turn out to be an excellent player, however United have paid a World Class player price for him so, at best, they'll have paid exactly the right fee for him, and anything less than the perfect scenario means they've overpaid. The fawning and group masturbation from the football pundits and commentators alike with regards to Martial is all a little nauseating.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

The Liverpool / United rivalry probably has it's origins in the 4 year period 1964-67 when each team alternated winning the title. Both clubs at that time though looked upon Everton / City as their main rival. The rivalry with each other was on the field the same as City / Chelsea is today and was not historic. In fact that is the only real period when both clubs were consistently good at the same time. It grew in the 70s and 80s as Liverpool firstly matched United's achievement in winning the European Cup and then surpassed it. There was much bitterness from United fans about this. At the time all English fans (including the majority of Evertonians) wanted Liverpool to win in Europe apart from the United fans. The biggest game for both though remained their local derby. Everton were actually Liverpool's main on field rival in the mid 80s at the time of Ferguson's arrival. When Ferguson came out with his comment about Liverpool being United's biggest game it was clearly meant to belittle City. Liverpool fans stupidly seized on this as a way to belittle Everton. Both fan bases were aware that historically (pre-WW 2) they were clearly the smaller clubs in their respective cities and both it has to be said still had a chip on their shoulder. I sometimes wonder if they still do? I used to work with an Evertonian who reckoned Liverpool hated Everton a lot more than the other way round because they were secretly frightened of them returning to their previous status of the top club in the city. I always thought that the infamous banner at Old Trafford and the far more numerous anti City songs than anti Liverpool songs from United supporters indicated the same sort of feeling even at our lowest point.

 

[The Black Shed]

The 45 passes + goal vs Southampton.
I haven't seen or heard yet a mention of the fact that not one single tackle, let alone any close attention, was made by a Southampton player in the build up to that goal.

Some quotes:
"they were mesmerised"
"passed to death"
"hypnotic" also got a mention.

If this gets into the goal of the season contenders, then people need their eyes tested, including the ex-pro pundits.
Again Utd were lucky, surely it can't carry on, unlike the agenda bandwagon.

 

[Gary James]

Hi Gary, I'm not disputing any of your facts above, but I'm not really talking about the 1950's as I wasn't around at the time. I do know that the rivalry spiraled in the 1970's and 80's. The whole reason this 'debate' has come about is because Stony posted that Alex Ferguson created the rivalry with Liverpool, and I said that simply was not true. He then used your book to back up his argument. In the documentary that I posted it was mentioned that in the 50's and early 60's there was little in the way of footballing rivalry between the clubs, fans and players...but then things changed. There is archived footage of Tommy Docherty and Ron Atkinson talking about the games with Liverpool being fierce battles on the pitch and an evil atmosphere in the stands. I can relate to all of that because I was there at the time. This was prior to Alex Ferguson, and this is my point.

At last, you agree that the LFC MUFC rivalry was not around throughout history (so therefore not directly connected with the ship canal) and that it is a more modern rivalry. Now it'd be worth telling everyone else connected with MUFC and the media that.

On the Doc... Always worth remembering that he was very outspoken on the violence around MUFC games. He wanted fans birched on the pitch, during his time at MUFC. Lots of great quotes from him about misbehaving United fans worth reading. Whether LFC MUFC was more of an evil atmosphere than a meeting with Leeds is debatable of course. Might be worth seeking the views of lufc and LFC fans.

 

[Gordyola]

Head above the parapet time here - I'm going to side with Shallyman. IIRC, the United/Liverpool rivalry started to spice up a bit in the late seventies, when Liverpool started to win the league more regularly (they won it three times in the 12 years in the top flight under Shankly, then 8 times in 11 seasons from 1975/6 onwards). It became quite nasty from both sides pretty quickly, as well. The Manc derby was different in that it was the game that you'd get merciless stick for at school if you lost, and certainly in the late seventies, it was a huge event on both sides. But then, the match could definitely go either way, City had more Wembley appearances and the like through the seventies, and by the time we were averaging home gates of over 40K between 76 and 78, that probably meant that the Manchester region had fairly equal numbers of match-going fans for both clubs. (United's gates were bigger than ours, but even then, they used to draw a lot of out-of-towners).

What really turned things round was that City were so poor for so long. After our victory in the derby at Maine Road in February 1981, we won one more competitive fixture against United in the next 21 years and 9 months. After we went down in 1983, we played outside the top flight for nine of the next 20 seasons, so for nearly 50% of the time, there wasn't even a proper Manchester derby, just the odd friendly or testimonial. In the light of that, it's hardly surprising that the occasion lost its edge and United fans started to regard Liverpool as the bigger game - and it happened very quickly after we failed to offer any meaningful derby challenge.

If, over the coming years, we have City and United competing with each other in the title race and having more major Cup games against one another while Liverpool predominantly finish in the Europa League places, things will probably start to change. However, it will take some time, I'd have thought. We certainly always got to them a bit even when we were shit and they were winning everything in sight. Any protestations that they saw us irrelevant to them were given the lie by things like that banner, while you could often hear lots of signing about us when they played in one of their rare (arf!) televised games. But I think we're deluding ourselves a little if we suggest that the derby has, in the last couple of decades or a bit more, generally been the game even local United fans would regard as their biggest.

Can't say it matters to me anyway. We're not the City of old any more and they know they've got a hell of a fight if they want to be the more successful club in Manchester these days. That's what counts for me now.

I entirely agree with you Petrusha, so a tin hat for me as well

 

[manimanc]

The rags rivals went from Liverpool, to arsenal, to Blackburn to chelsea to us in a heartbeat.
Whoever won the league utd decided that was their rivals as how dare they win "their " trophy.
Us on the other hand class the rags as our rivals come rain or shine.
Whatever division we was in it didn't matter, utd was our derby and they would be our rivals full stop.
Utds rivalry with the mickeys is based on pure bitterness and jealousy, nothing else.
What else could it be?
The Beatles and the cavern? Shellsuits?
It's pure bitterness.
Then they decide to call us bitters for nearly 35 years, put up that banner and dismiss us as little old citeh.
We was shite personified for years, visited some proper shitholes in division 3 whilst they swept up every cup yet I still had them as our rivals.
You can't just change your enemy at the drop of a hat like they do.
Now after calling us noisy neighbours for a couple of years and seeing us win leagues and cups they suddenly want us to be their fierce rivals again.
Get fucked.
We always was.