Interesting extract from Gary Neville's Autobio. My view is is that although it burns and frustrates me to read how they conducted themselves. Although I feel its the wrong way to play football....it worked and that is the most important thing of all that it worked for United. However I don't agree the invincibles were 'soft', it was only after 2006 we became 'soft'
enjoy!
Arsenal’s Invincibles were a truly brilliant football team but their attitude wound me up.
They acted as though the rest of the world was meant to sit back and admire their beautiful football. Sorry, count me out. Some of us had a mission to stop them by all legitimate means.
At Aston Villa last season Robert Pires did an interview and he was still banging on about how annoying I could be. He talked about me tripping him, insulting him, standing on his feet and being a general pain. ‘I thought more about having a row with Neville than playing football,’ Pires said. Music to my ears.
When Arsenal were in their pomp, I had him and Ashley Cole rampaging on the left flank and Thierry Henry doing those blistering runs from inside to out. It was like marking the Red Arrows.
Stopping Arsenal was a job that required a defender to reach for all the tricks. Especially on the afternoon in October 2004 when the Invincibles rode into Old Trafford, hoping to notch up their 50th League game unbeaten. We were under massive pressure. Arsenal had stolen the title back from us in 2003-04 with their incredible run, finishing 15 points ahead of us. We couldn’t bear another humiliation. The idea of Arsenal celebrating 50 Premier League matches unbeaten in our backyard was unthinkable. It was all set up for the match forever to be remembered as the Battle of the Buffet.
It’s the only match when I’ve ever been accused of brutalising an opponent. So let me first make it clear that in almost 20 years at United the manager never asked me to kick anyone. I’ve no idea if other managers have issued instructions to ‘take out’ a player but I can promise you that wasn’t our boss’s style. But did he tell us to get tight, put a foot in and let Arsenal know they were in for a battle? Of course, he did.
The manager’s belief was that too many opponents had stood off Arsenal. They had allowed them to play, to strut around. Technically they were as good as anything we’ve seen in England in my time. But there are all kinds of attributes that make up a football side and they didn’t like it when the contest became physical.
ARSENAL HAD ALL THE SKILLS BUT THEY ALSO HAD A SOFT CENTRE
You could never say that of the 1998 Arsenal side. They were experienced and strong, both mentally and physically. They were tough. They didn’t have the touch of arrogance that would come in the Henry years when their attitude was ‘you can’t touch us, we’re French and we’re brilliant’.
We knew the Invincibles had all the skill in the world but they also had a soft centre. You always felt you had a chance against them because you could get about them, bully them.
‘If you let them play they’ll destroy you,’ the manager told us in his pre-match talk. ‘So you’d better be right up against them. It’s a football match. You’re allowed to tackle. And no other team tackles them so let’s make sure Mister Pires and Mister Henry know that today’s going to be hard. Today’s going to be different.’
That didn’t mean going over the top. It didn’t mean reckless two-footed challenges. Who wants to get sent off ? That would be self-destructive. But we knew a lot of them hated aerial challenges, so what did we do? Clattered them in the air at every opportunity.
My job was to nullify the threat of Antonio Reyes.
My thought process was simple: ‘He’s a great player, a pacy, tricky winger. If I stand off him and don’t tackle, he’ll run rings round me and make me look an idiot. He’s got more skill, he’s got more speed. I might have more stamina but that’s not going to be much good if he’s ripped me apart in the first 30 minutes.’
You are like a boxer trying to work out whether to jab and run or get in close. And while I could try to intercept, using my experience and positional abilities, I knew that above all I had to get tight, get physical. I had to makes Reyes lose his confidence.
If there were question-marks about him — justified by what turned out to be a short spell in England — they were over his temperament. It was my job to expose that weakness.
The rest of the article is here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2030841/Gary-Neville-How-did-Manchester-United-beat-Arsene-Wengers-Arsenal-We-bullied-them.html
The Gary Neville School of Football
posted on 1/9/11
"Yes, and there were plenty. But that whole fiasco was washed over on the likes of MOTD and a week after it, nothing was ever mentioned again."
It was shown and discussed on MOTD - and why would they show it the week after? Would people not have got bored of them showing it again?
"Even the majority of newspapers chose not to focus on it the next day!!"
No, they didnt focus on it - i'm sure most people would have preferred to read about the weekend's football! - but it was certainly mentioned and discussed.
posted on 1/9/11
"Now take the whole Ruud incident and we are still hearing journalists and pundits on about it today!"
No we're not. It gets mentioned when United play Arsenal as one of the moments that summed up the bitterness of the rivalry back then, but thats about it.
posted on 1/9/11
Gingerfinch and bloodred - You both know what I'm saying. Even the FA verdict proves my point. The whole thing was ushered out of sight as soon as was possible.
Again though, you are entitled to contrasting opinions.
posted on 1/9/11
Gingerfinch and bloodred - You both know what I'm saying. Even the FA verdict proves my point. The whole thing was ushered out of sight as soon as was possible.
------------------------
Was it that the ref said he 'saw' the incident so therefore nothing could be done? Bit of a stupid rule I suppose.
Everybody who watched it knew that he deserved a ban.
posted on 1/9/11
"Was it that the ref said he 'saw' the incident so therefore nothing could be done?"
It doesn't matter because if the ref did see it, you have to ask why he let it go. Was it because of who it was? I think so.
And yes, it is a stupid rule. One that should have changed at that point, given the nature of what he did. But again, it's Wayne Rooney.....
posted on 1/9/11
"Was it that the ref said he 'saw' the incident so therefore nothing could be done?"
It doesn't matter because if the ref did see it, you have to ask why he let it go. Was it because of who it was? I think so.
----------------
Mmm, I think it was or still is a rule and nowt to do with who it was.
posted on 1/9/11
comment by bloodred (U1222)
posted 26 minutes ago
it was an over-reaction to a blatant attempt at a body check from JC
It should have been a straight red of course, but Rooney did not instigate the incident.
__________________________
Elbowing someone in the back of the head because of a body check is thuggish in my book.
-----------------------------
And mine
It was a foreram by the way, not an elbow
posted on 1/9/11
comment by homanahomana (U8703)
posted 23 minutes ago
"I'm sure there were a few articles when it happened?"
Yes, and there were plenty. But that whole fiasco was washed over on the likes of MOTD and a week after it, nothing was ever mentioned again. Even the majority of newspapers chose not to focus on it the next day!! Again, there will be obvious bias between the fans and you are entitled to your opinion on this matter, as am I.
"it was an over-reaction to a blatant attempt at a body check from JC"
Sorry, but that is a warped view on the reality of what he did. If you can't even be honest about it, then don't comment. It was a disgusting thing to do, end of.
-------------------------------
I didn't say it wasn't disgusting, it was.
I don't see why stating factual information about the incident is having a warped sense tbh
What part of what I wrote isn't true?
You do not think JC tried to body check Rooney off the ball and you don't think that is thuggish either?
I would say to you don't comment.
I can accept Rooney should have had a straight red, I stated that. But that doesn;t mean the incident wasn't instigated by JC
Go check the incident agin if you think my view is warped.
look at Rooney following play and look at JC following Rooney's run, then watch what he does
JC was hardly an innocent party
posted on 1/9/11
comment by homanahomana (U8703)
posted 13 minutes ago
"Was it that the ref said he 'saw' the incident so therefore nothing could be done?"
It doesn't matter because if the ref did see it, you have to ask why he let it go. Was it because of who it was? I think so.
And yes, it is a stupid rule. One that should have changed at that point, given the nature of what he did. But again, it's Wayne Rooney.....
----------------------
Ah. Now I see where you are coming from
Oh dear.
You mean the same Rooney that was banned for the FA Cup semi?
seems the fact he is wayne Rooney didn't help there did it.
posted on 1/9/11
So in a topic which seems to have headed towards unsportsmanship behavior we have people criticising Rooney for his 'elbow' (which was a forearm) but no criticism of the Wigan player ?!
Rooney at the time was just trying to play football it was the Wigan player who iniated the unsportsman like behaviour between the two of them to which Rooney overreacted.
There was a media storm over Rooney's non dismissal! there was a media storm when the FA didn't specifically change their rules to punish Rooney. Opposition fans were all over it, the scousers inpaticular. I am sure MOTD showed it in their little end of season review of United...
Plenty of other players have done worse since and little to nothing has been mentioned..
The ref didn't see the incident properly and didn't have any assisstants letting him now what happened he just saw Rooney do something, so played it safe and gave him a yellow...
Lets talk about Arsharvin, how come he wasn't sent off ? Is it just because of who he is.... I think so...