Terminal BoardomIdealcmonurz I think it's hilarious that some (like Ideal) post such generalised crap
Oh yeah, so you're telling me it's not true then? It's not true that Manchester United buy less players of higher quality, while Liverpool sign more players - but those are players of lower quality?
You are taking ignorance to a whole new level.
Errr... Robbie Keane?
OK, just one example. Also, the commentator in the WBA -v- Liverpool game actually came out with some sense. He stated that the key difference was the strength in depth betwenn Liverpool and Man Utd.
But Liverpool are well known to have the biggest squad in the land.
62 players on full time contracts
Ferguson's transfer record - that list don't include baby Totti and Anderson, Tosic and Manucho may all prove to be very good players indeed.
My thoughts on Liverpool is that for a long time they spent decent money on players but rarely splashed a lot of money on one player - so they ended up with a squad full of decent enough players and had Gerrard, Alonso and a solid defence carrying them through. They've finally clicked that, when Manchester United spend big, they tend to spend really big and on something truly good - van Nistelrooy, Rooney, Ferdinand, Ronaldo (£12.25 million for a 17 year old, iirc), Carrick, Hargreaves all in the 10 million plus league and Vidic at £7 million. Only Veron and Saha would go down in the failures column. Liverpool, to my eye, spent big money on the Bellamys and Keanes of the world.
Oh yeah, they also, one season not long ago, had a strike force of Bellamy, Crouch, Fowler and Kuyt. That's never going to fire you to the Championship.
Still, there's always next year.
@ you'll never win the European Cup or be half the club Liverpool are and were.
Funny how there are so many Liverpool fans on this site. I suppose every Reading fan has a 2nd team.
