I keep on hearing that the Manchester United team that won their 19th title earlier today isn’t a vintage team, that we only have to look back a couple of years to the team that included Ronaldo and Tevez to see a better side.
I’m not convinved that this is the case. The 2009 team was obviously a successful side, but was it better than the current one?
I think it is fair to say that it had better individual talent in it with Ronaldo and bigger names with Carlos Tevez, but that could have overshadowed it’s weaknesses.
I believe the current side is actually a better team, the team now wins games rather than an outstanding contribution from one individual doing the business. In other words, Ronaldo papered over the cracks of the 2009 vintage.
When Ferdinand and Vidic play I believe the defence is stronger than 2 years ago, they have youngsters like Rafael coming through as well. In midfield they have Park and Valencia adding workrate and guile to the side, they now have Giggs pulling the strings in the centre. Up front they have Rooney, the leagues top scorer in Berbatov and the little genius, Javier Hernandez.
With the obvious exception of Paul Scholes, I believe that nearly all the rest of the 1st team players from 2009 are now better footballers than they were 2 years ago. Even Anderson.
The only teams I see in Eurpoe that are better than Manchester United are obviously Barcelona and maybe Real Madrid, would Ferguson’s team fear anybody else?
Are any Italian sides better? I don’t think so. German or French teams? Again, I don’t see it.
They are without a doubt in the top 3 sides in Europe for me, and one of those 3 sides is talked about as being possibly the best club side ever. So if this is a poor United side, it is a hell of a good, poor side.
And congratulations to United, they were my tip to win the league at the start of the season and fully deserve their 19th title.