In my opinion, in 20 years time, Manchester United will be in a similar position to where Liverpool are now- i.e. upper midtable, with a reliance on their history for pride. Before I begin, I want to make clear I don't say this with any bias of dislike for Manchester United at all, because if anything I admire how good they are at developing young talent, they're always exciting to watch and their successes are built fundamentally on team spirit, hardworking people and a winning mentality. They'll certainly be competing at the top of the table for at least the next 5 years, I'm sure of that, but I think in 15 or 20 years, they'll be taken over by the billionnaires of Chelsea and Man City. It's not something that I'd necessarily like to see, but I think it's what's going to happen. And here's 5 reasons why...
1. Their academy.
It might seem like a strange one to start off with, but I think the quality of Manchester United's academy is potentially to their detriment. The reality is, the best football teams in England will be able to poach the best youngsters from other clubs, rather than develop their own, and I think it would be a more of an ethical than logical move for United to put too much emphasis on developing their own young players because the chances are, they just won't be good enough. Since the likes of Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, the Neville brothers and Nicky Butt, the Red Devils haven't been able to produce as good quality local lads. Let's have a look at who they've brought through the academy of late: Michael Keane, Vermijl, Wootton, and before that players like Ravel Morrison, Ben Amos. These amongst the best players they've produced, and what have they done when they've played? I would argue that United haven't produced any players from their academy that are capable of actually enhancing the first team squad since the golden generation in the 90s. The occassional academy starlet with a bit of pace can sometimes have the advantage of getting the fans on their feet which will motivate the team and lift the atmosphere a little bit, but ultimately attempts to build a team that can compete with City and Chelsea's spending power, to any significant degree through their academy will be futile.
2. Reliance on experienced players
I think the callback of Paul Scholes from retirement nearly saved Manchester United's title last season. In the first half of last year, Ferguson went for a long-term gamble by pairing Cleverley and Anderson, which injected the team with a lot of energy and oomph in link-up play going forward, but it lacked that composed head who was able to hold position and keep the shape of the team, whilst never give the ball away and keep things ticking. Paul Scholes was definately that man, and I think he is the best passer of a ball in the Premiership, still. United definately needed him, but in some ways I think that's more of a reflection on Manchester United than Paul Scholes. He's 37 now, and surely won't be playing for much more than two years, it's a similar story for the likes of the following players:
-Michael Carrick, is 31, has a great positional sense and good passer but lacks the stamina of someone like Vieira/Yaya Toure and can be outrun in midfield at times. Long-term replacement- Nick Powell? Anderson/Cleverley playing deeper wouldn't suit them- they're more attacking.
-Rio Ferdinand, 33, provides good experience but he lacks pace. LT replacement- Jonny Evans?
-Evra, 30, I've seen him be outrun a number of times on the right flank, it's been too easy for a winger to get a cross in. LT Replacement- Buttner? He's got some talent going forward but is liable to conceding set pieces in defence.
-Vidic, 31, has had several long-term injuries but he's considered a key player. LT replacement- Phil Jones/Smalling?
-Giggs, admittedly is more of a squad player.
-Controversially I'd say van Persie, although he's just signed and been successful, he's 30 now and will only have one or two seasons at his best left in him.
-I'd also argue Valencia, he was a great player last season but I think he's slightly past his peak for a winger that relies on his ability to beat a man.
It might just be my opinion, but it would worry me the lack of long-term planning Ferguson is showing in continuing to play experienced players and not looking to replace them with the same quality. Nick Powell will take about 5 years to come good if he is the real deal, I don't think Jonny Evans is anything more than a good squad player for the club, Buttner has looked poor at times defensively, I would see Phil Jones or Smalling as more utility players than in the same bracket as Vidic, although to be fair United have got some promising options going forward.
I just think if the long-term replacements don't turn out well, Manchester United don't have the ability like City and Chelsea to go out and buy the best players quite as easily.
3. Ownership problems.
I will admit, I don't know every single minute detail about the situation with the Glaziers, but the impression I get is that their reasons for having control of Manchester United are entirely profit related. Which, in a way makes sense: why would a group of people from the other side of the world want to takeover a club to make them a little bit better than they were before? I'm sure annually, the club profits from the amount of TV money, ticket sales and merchandising revenue it gets, especially playing in the champions league. Eventually, if the Glaziers sell the club, it will simply be to the highest bidder, and not necessarily someone who cares about the club, but someone who will put fragmented bits of money into the club, like the Glaziers did for van Persie, as window-dressing, but ultimately all most chairman are ever likely to think about, unless they are an Abramovich or a Mansour, is what money they can make out of the club. Essentially, unless United get a multi-billionnaire, oil-rich chairman, they won't be able to compete with the likes of Man City and Chelsea.
4. Spending compared to Manchester City and Chelsea.
Whenever I make this point, some people say: 'You can't say they don't splash the cash occassionally.' or 'actually, they spent £30 million on Berbatov', so I'd like to compare Manchester United's net spending with Manchester City's and Chelsea's over the last 5 years since Sheikh Mansour took over at the Citizens.
Manchester City transfer activity, 2008-2012:
Total money spent- £538 mil
Most expensive signing- Sergio Aguero, £38 mil
Total money received- £131 mil
Most expensive sale- Robinho, £22 mil
Net spending- £407 mil
Chelsea transfer activity, 2008-2012:
Total money spent- £310 mil
Most expensive signing- Fernando Torres, £50 mil
Total money received- £78 mil
Most expensive sale- Yuri Yhirkov, £13 mil
Net spending- £232 mil
Manchester United transfer activity, 2008-2012:
Total money spent- £187 mil
Most expensive signing- Dimitar Berbatov, £31 mil
Total money received- £126 mil
Most expensive sale- Cristiano Ronaldo, £80 mil
Net spending- £61 mil
As you can see, over the past 5 years, Manchester United have spent a net total of £61 million, compared to Manchester City and Chelsea spending £407 mil and £232 mil respectively. I think Abramovich and Mansour will ultimately find a way around the FIFA financial fair play rule, and if so, both of those clubs will be able to attract the best players with the lure of Champions League football, and also a ridiculously high wage packet, which Man United won't be prepared to pay. If the current levels of spending from Manchester City and Chelsea, in comparison with United's continue, I think the richest clubs will dominate in the end, leaving the Red Devils manager to feed off comparitively sparing investments from the chairman, which will be done occassionally to appease the fans, but all any chairman of Manchester United will care about will be the money they can make from the club. And if the club is going to be run that way, I don't think they can continue to compete for the title for longer than 10 years maximum.
5. Ferguson will retire.
This leads me rather tidily onto my final, and possibly most important point. Sir Alex Ferguson. Not everyone likes him, but he is undoubtedly the most successful manager in the world, and I think the best. The crucial thing about Ferguson, is that he is the craftsman of all Manchester United's great teams. From the one in the mid-90s with Bruce, Pallister and Cantona, the treble-winning team when the likes of Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and the Neville brothers came through the youth system and took the world by storm, not to mention Schmeichel and the Cole/Yorke partnership, moving midway through the first decade of the new millenia most of us thought Chelsea were going to rule under Mourinho's guidance for the next 10 years or so, but Ferguson built a breathtaking attacking combination of Rooney-Tevez-Ronaldo which won the league three years in a row. There were so many incredible players and memories that were almost solely down to Ferguson's genius. Over the course of his 25 years, they've had to see off Liverpool's tradition, Arsenal's football and Chelsea's money, but United under Ferguson seem to just keep going whenever you write them off.
This is what worries me; I think only a manager of Ferguson's quality can continue to win trophies for United in the long-term, with the limited financial resources they have (in comparison with City and Chelsea). I've no idea where Manchester United will go when Ferguson retires, it will be alien circumstances and unless they can get Pep Guardiola, I think it could be a downward spiral for them for them once Sir Alex decides enough's enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment