[Deffeh]

I think trying to characterise man utd as a 'small homebred team against the odds' is impossible, especially given their recent transfer fees. Rooney + Ferdinand + Carrick = £70m+. Even if we think about supposed man utd through and through players, the likes of Giggs were poached from other clubs at youth level (he was a man city boy, as was i think, nicky butt). They hold monopolys at other levels than just transfer fees, not all of which are good for the game.


However,

(1) Man utd still 'play by the rules of the game', in that there are obvious deficiencies in their team and their squad that wont neccesarily be papered over as soon as the transfer window is open again. You cant say the same for chelsea - the best chelsea's detractors can hope for is that the players they have flop and they have to put up with them for max, half a season. I doubt someone like Heinze would have lasted as long at chelsea with his mistakes - and i doubt a player like fletcher would even get the CHANCE to develop as a player despite pressure of being at a high profile club.

(2) Youth and youth systems. As hinted at before - although they havent had much real success - at least in the last 3 years (which we all hopefully agree is a start of a new era in the premiership, since abramovich took over chelsea) - ferguson has at least tried to bleed in fletcher, richardson, and to a lesser extent bardsley (before being shipped to rangers) rossi (newcastle), and wes brown. Chelsea? No one. For sure, no one. John terry i think is the only one that comes to mind thats been with chelsea his entire career. Both Arsenal and Man Utd use the lesser cup competitions to bleed youth players and such - for chelsea its a chance for swp, cudicini, wayne bridge and other international quality players to actually get a game.

(3) The Manager. Oh sure, Fergie is an arrogant mother ****er, and a prick to boot, not talking to the bbc all these years. But he has also assembled pretty much 3 completely seperate teams in his time in charge of Man Utd. He has played attacking football, bled youth, and shown acute transfer and tactical awareness - solskjaer fits in both categories, both in his fee, and his cameos (99?). Mourinho has came in - with a uc and a cl trophy under his belt - but with a fantastic history of leading a bunch of divers to success. Hes had to demonstrate NO transfer awareness given that he's been allowed a blank chequebook - and has wasted a shit load of money. Tactics wise, chelsea have been found lacking on several occasions and sheer brute force has won them games because of the quality of player they have, rather than the way he has them playing. He has been with chelsea only while the going is good - whereas ferguson has been close to the sack and earned his position as untouchable.

these are three of the biggest reasons off the top of my head.