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.