Jump to content

Andy Cole


Paully

Recommended Posts

Guest Howaythetoon

My first hero and a very very upsetting day for me that was, for most I imagine. Great player for us and full stop. Happy days :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cole and Beardsley are still the highest scoring striker partnership in Premier League history.

 

they are but there was 42 leagues games that season. never be beaten mind. cole was a top striker who was sold because he couldn't play with paul kitson. he won doubles and trebles and we didn't . Fergie was right Keegan was wrong is the uncomfortable truth.

 

However we did end up with two power forwards in Ferdinand and Shearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cole and Beardsley are still the highest scoring striker partnership in Premier League history.

 

they are but there was 42 leagues games that season. never be beaten mind. cole was a top striker who was sold because he couldn't play with paul kitson. he won doubles and trebles and we didn't . Fergie was right Keegan was wrong is the uncomfortable truth.

Shearer with Ferdinand were unplayable.  Keegan was right, Fergie got lucky!
Link to post
Share on other sites

My first hero and a very very upsetting day for me that was, for most I imagine. Great player for us and full stop. Happy days :thup:

 

True, I was in quite the fluffery buffery

 

Was you hurting Harry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
1 hour ago, Cookie1892 said:

if we had of kept him to play alongside ferdinand and not bought shearer - does anyone think we would have won the league in 95/96

No. Cole wasn't very good his first few years at Man United, literally a joke at times with all his horrendous misses.

Man U supporting journo said they'd snap your arms off for their money back in 97.

We probably got closer because of the way it was.

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Maybe if we'd signed Yorke instead of Ferdinand, I can't imagine Ferdinand and Cole playing together. 

why not? Cole and Yorke's record was not that great. It's another myth presented to us by the media. Even rat boy and the pantomime horse had a better record

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

No. Cole wasn't very good his first few years at Man United, literally a joke at times with all his horrendous misses.

Man U supporting journo said they'd snap your arms off for their money back in 97.

We probably got closer because of the way it was.

 

 

 

Coles form coincided with Cantona's retirement. Thats why Peter Beardsley was a better player than Cantona, Beardsley got the best out of players around him and improved them

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Keegan's only mistakes, selling him? I know they had a fall out in October 1993ish and their relationship was probably not the same after but selling someone with a scoring record as ridiculous as Cole's was I don't think I'll ever get. 

 

It almost paid off. But it didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was justified at the time by Keegan saying he wanted to change the way we played. If you just look at it in money terms we effectively swapped Cole for Gillespie and a more well rounded (but older) striker in Ferdinand. And additional funds spent on Ginola, Hislop, Barton and later Shearer.*

 

I'm still not sure tbh, I was gutted as an 11 year old but loved the side that followed. Cole for us was a finishing machine which meant he had limitations but for all Ferguson improved his all round game I think he lost some of that dynamism at Man Utd. 

 

* Edit: and Batty and Asprilla as well! We spent quite a lot during that period beyond the Cole fee. 

 

 

Edited by Interpolic

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

It was justified at the time by Keegan saying he wanted to change the way we played. If you just look at it in money terms we effectively swapped Cole for Gillespie and a more well rounded (but older) striker in Ferdinand. And additional funds spent on Ginola, Hislop, Barton and later Shearer. 

 

I'm still not sure tbh, I was gutted as an 11 year old but loved the side that followed. Cole for us was a finishing machine which meant he had limitations but for all Ferguson improved his all round game I think he lost some of that dynamism at Man Utd. 

 

As someone who missed out on the period, if I could watch or experience one of the sides or seasons from that era it's 1993-94. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goes under the radar but building that 95/96 team (Gillespie,Ginola, Ferdinand, Shaka, Barton) cost about £2.5m net in transfers alone.

Cole, Fox, Mathie, Venison, Nielson, Robinson out.

Factor in the record shirt sales and everything else probably made a healthy profit creating the best team we've ever seen.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonas

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wolfcastle said:

No. Cole wasn't very good his first few years at Man United, literally a joke at times with all his horrendous misses.

Man U supporting journo said they'd snap your arms off for their money back in 97.

We probably got closer because of the way it was.

 

 

 

 

Remember one game, can't remember who it was against. Man Utd were thrashing some team, someone scored and Cole went to kick the ball back into the net again, hit the post and the commentator said "He still can't score." Being the petty bitch I am, I loved it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...