By FAR The Greatest Team...

[Scott]

From The Times:

SIR ALEX FERGUSON ONCE SAID THAT his greatest achievement as Manchester United manager had been “knocking Liverpool off their f***ing perch”. Now the Fink Tank, in its infinite (well, 99 per cent certain) wisdom, has found that, historically speaking, Ferguson was being a bit f***ing premature.

When I first started supporting United in the late 1960s, United and Liverpool (and indeed Arsenal) had each won seven championships. By 1990, Liverpool had stacked up 18 titles, while United were still stuck on seven. Now the score is 18-15, with Arsenal on 13. Over the past 15 years, Ferguson’s United have indeed knocked Liverpool down a few pegs. But the Fink Tank’s table shows that Liverpool are still narrowly winning the war of football greatness.

Football, however, is about more than statistics. When fans of every club in the country sing about their favourites as “by far the greatest team the world has ever seen”, they all mean it. I recall years ago hearing it sung with gusto at a non-league game by two anoraks whose version began with, “And it’s Windsor and Eton, Windsor and Eton FC . . .” They were not being ironic or postmodern.

So how might we yet claim United to be the greatest? For a start, United’s history is the greatest myth in English football — not myth as in untrue story, but in the other sense of “a legend that deals with gods and heroes”.

From the Busby Babes, the Munich disaster and Wembley ’68 to Cantona’s karate kick and the last minutes of Barcelona ’99, United have written a legendary epic that Homer could not better, never mind Hollywood. That is one reason why, even in the dark years of Scouse domination in the 1970s and 1980s, more people paid to get into Old Trafford than Anfield.

United have long boasted the greatest panache on the pitch. No other club could have contained the extravagances of a Georgie Best or a King Eric, even if they have had great teams. When Steve McClaren said that the first time he saw Wayne Rooney play for Everton he thought that the young Liverpudlian looked “like a Manchester United player”, everybody outside Goodison Park must have known what he meant.

And United are surely the greatest drama queens in the theatre of English football, the ones who, as Ferguson has often observed, never make it easy for themselves or their fans. Every winning United team are always capable of being beaten by losers. No other club could claim to be the biggest in the world and yet still contrive not to win the English championship for 26 years (although Liverpool, at 16 years and counting, are catching up). No other English club have been adored and despised with such equal ferocity (some of us can even do both at the same time).

If United have a great season in 2006-07, they could yet overhaul Liverpool at the top of the historical league table. Which, given the state of team and management at Old Trafford, suggests that the Scousers are safe up on their perch for at least another year.

Whatever the statistics say, however, United remain by far the greatest team the world has ever seen. The world according to me, anyway. Although the Windsor and Eton massive might still disagree

[chiff]

History has a way of being selectively analysed. So you take what? 50 years, 100 years, the years of the Prem, the eighties when you judge. And each of those, in results terms, would give you a different "winner".

So what do we know? Liverpool in the 70's/80's and Utd in the 90's produced two dynasties that rank equally (IMO). You also have Arsenal in the 30's and for domination in the 20th century, they're probably the three that count. But is it only results that count ? I agree with Scott when he talks about "magic". Apart from brief flirtations by Sexton, we have not resorted to 1-0 football for 60 years. We've not been "Match of the day" regulars because of our winning habits, it's because we guarantee viewers by entertaining. We're the most loved and hated club because others ENVY us. They envy the fact that we don't compromise the "Utd Way". Ask any football fan about Utd, and they know it's not West Ham or Newcastle . It's Manchester Utd. Similarly, most Europeans know us as Manchester. Sorry about that Blues but it's a fact.
The fact is that we spent 26 unproductive years creating a stadium that was still filled repeatedly. While our competitors fiddled around with stadia two thirds the size. True that at 76000 we might possibly not have the "house full" notices up all the time. But I've been at OT for a reserves match with over 29000 there. When we were relegated, we averaged more than 40000 in what was Div 2 (Championship in today's speak). Why? Because we are the greatest club in Britain. I defer to Madrid because of their fantastic European history in the 50's and 60's but only them.
Of course all things end. . Fans disappear but supporters remain. To all us supporters they are the Windsor and Eton and even nearly good enough to be the Hyde United. Not quite but you never know.

[onenedkelly]

I agree were the Greatest club in Britain mate but I know others would state were not but we are the most famous team in Britain

chiff said:

History has a way of being selectively analysed. So you take what? 50 years, 100 years, the years of the Prem, the eighties when you judge. And each of those, in results terms, would give you a different "winner".

So what do we know? Liverpool in the 70's/80's and Utd in the 90's produced two dynasties that rank equally (IMO). You also have Arsenal in the 30's and for domination in the 20th century, they're probably the three that count. But is it only results that count ? I agree with Scott when he talks about "magic". Apart from brief flirtations by Sexton, we have not resorted to 1-0 football for 60 years. We've not been "Match of the day" regulars because of our winning habits, it's because we guarantee viewers by entertaining. We're the most loved and hated club because others ENVY us. They envy the fact that we don't compromise the "Utd Way". Ask any football fan about Utd, and they know it's not West Ham or Newcastle . It's Manchester Utd. Similarly, most Europeans know us as Manchester. Sorry about that Blues but it's a fact.
The fact is that we spent 26 unproductive years creating a stadium that was still filled repeatedly. While our competitors fiddled around with stadia two thirds the size. True that at 76000 we might possibly not have the "house full" notices up all the time. But I've been at OT for a reserves match with over 29000 there. When we were relegated, we averaged more than 40000 in what was Div 2 (Championship in today's speak). Why? Because we are the greatest club in Britain. I defer to Madrid because of their fantastic European history in the 50's and 60's but only them.
Of course all things end. . Fans disappear but supporters remain. To all us supporters they are the Windsor and Eton and even nearly good enough to be the Hyde United. Not quite but you never know.

[rewdie]

For once Chiff I agree with you, and good post Scott mate, interesting read