[quote=ASUcruz;921396]
Quote:
|
I'm not sure you get my point. Ferguson took over a team that was nearly relegated. None of the other clubs you mentioned below had to deal with that. That point is pretty clear, I'm not sure how it's an excuse, seems like a pretty important fact.
|
I get your point. You're in denial.
Ferguson finished 2nd and then went back down to 11th. Actually it was 13th place he finished. You can shove that fact up your ass.
For a hypocritical, insecure little pussy that you are, who needs validation from other fans to support your argument, why don't you dig up information on how disappointed ManU fans and the ManUtd organization were with Ferguson at the time.
Quote:
|
Again, Wenger wasn't rebuilding a club that was nearly relegated. They were still at top 4 club
|
.
No he wasn't, but he spent like a small club while ManUtd used the same budget on one Juan Sebastian Veron.
Wenger's current squad, even though I underestimated them, is very impressive considering both Chelsea and ManUtd have built their with multiple players who cost 20-30 million each.
Quote:
|
Again, Benitez wasn't rebuilding a team that was nearly relegated. Again a top 4 club.
|
No he wasn't, but the three other top teams didn't have to go through an overhaul. You're comparing three apples to an orange that is Liverpool.
ManUtd finished 15 points ahead of Liverpool, Mourinho was taking over a second place team, Arsenal were defending champs that weren't being disassembled.
Liverpool with Owen were a 4th place team. Benitez had to make do without replacing a striker of Owen's caliber.
Liverpool were not close to relegation, but after 5 seasons and 125million spent, Liverpool were NOT SUPPOSE to finish 15 points behind the third place team. The Smicers, Biscans, Cheyrou"the next Zidane", Diouf "the next Anelka", and Diao"the next Viera" that Houllier brought in to play with Hamann, Gerrard, and Kewell were SUPPOSED to be better than any midfield in the premiership by then. I put Diouf there because he was playing as a winger.
You didn't watch enough of Liverpool that season and whatever you say to claim you watched plenty of them, you're not going to convince me because it's THAT obvious.
Without Owen, that Liverpool team managed by Houllier would have been closer to the bottom than the top.
When Mourinho took over Porto, he had half a season to evaluate, and then brought in 8 players of his choice in the offseason. Benitez brought in 3 players of his choice to start his first season with Liverpool. Needless to say that isn't much for a team that needed an overhaul.
The thing is, it is hindsight that made us realize just how badly that Liverpool team needed the overhaul. I was guilty of being overly optimistic when he first arrived.
Winning the Champions League under those conditions and beating that AC Milan team from being down 3-0 at half time is at least as impressive as Porto winning it.
Quote:
|
Seeing as Ferguson was able to win a European Cup with a very small club in Aberdeen I think this point is very arguable
|
.
It's arguable, but it doesn't win the argument.
Quote:
|
So your saying I'm pathetic because I have an opinion. Next time I'll preface all my comments with "In my opinion" since you aren't able to understand what is or isn't.
|
Nice try.
It depends you moron. When you said Morientes replaced Owen right away, that isn't on opinion. It's an event you' were trying to describe, but didn't bother using our pea sized brain before making yourself looking like an idiot.
Your view on Mourinho's resume is FAR MORE impressive than Benitez is your view and the view shared by many others, but not a FACT.
You'd make the worst journalist to ever grace the face of this earth. That's my opinion of you and you earned it.
Quote:
|
This is another thing I noticed in this discussions. Redxalonso has the tendency to take one of my sound arguments. Misconstrue in completely and then argue against it.
|
Now you're delusional for thinking you're making sound arguments.
And you're stupid enough to think that others don't know you're referring to me.
Quote:
If you would read this point clearly, you would understand that the point I am making was that wining 2 back to back titles with Chelsea was a very impressive feat because the top teams in the Premiership were very strong. Notice I wrote "2 back to back title". No mention of the Champions League whatsoever. The point was made to illustrate that winning two titles back to back against such top competition is not an easy feat.
Yet, Redxalonso somehow takes this point and attributes it to someting completley different.
First he gives me the old personal insult then takes a lineup against Porto and wonders why I would call this team powerful. Apparently one squad determines whether or not a team is powerful or not.
Seeing that United were a year removed from winning the title I think that team was powerful. Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Ruud, Rio, and Neville as the established players. An up and comer in Ronaldo, as well as good squad players like Ole, Brown, and Butt.
That was still a very good squad. Make fun of Silvestre all you want, I sure do, but he did put in a few good seasons for United amidst all his average ones.
|
You sure didn't have a problem continuing with the argument.
Pre-Mourinho's Chelsea squad finished above your powerful ManUtd squad.
The money Mourinho had to spend was UNPRECEDENTED by any club in the world.
Benitez inherited a good squad and won at Valencia, but he didn't have the kind of money Jose had at Chelsea. Benitez was not outspending Real Madrid and Barcelona the rate Mourinho is to his competition.
You're so busy giving perpetual handjobs to Ferguson, Mourinho, and Lampard that it's no wonder you don't have time to think. And when you do think, you're thinking about other fans opinions to support yours. Wuss.
Mr. Irreverent
I was hoping to see El Nino Torres out there... 
