food for thought - is parks more regular appearances in the team a sign of united not playing the..

Originally Posted by wee man

Well he is responsible for signing the players that are there.

Certainly, but when you sign a player who is as raw and untested as Ronaldo was, then you can never be quite certain how they will develop. In this instance, 5 years later, we have a player who is so good going forward that he must be included, and so poor at defending that he must be accomodated for. Hence the dilemma.

classic marlo post tbh

in the first part he (mis)quotes Ferguson at his press conference - Ferguson said that the main difference between his wide options is that some are good when they've got the ball, whereas Park doesn't need the ball, he is good without it. the inference from Ferguson is not that Park isn't good with the ball, but that certain others aren't good without it.

then in the second part of his argument he says that United defended for 70 minutes at home to Barcelona last season. so after (mis)quoting the press conference for the first part he then ignores the press conference for the second part. Ferguson talked about the 2nd leg of last season's semi, saying that United played well even though they had to defend what they had for the last 15 minutes.


aside from that, it's interesting that Barcelona used Iniesta on the left in Munich, or that they used Messi to outnumber us in midfield 4 against 2 at times in Rome. Park wasn't a negative selection, he was just one of the options we had to play that shape on the night. all teams adjust their tactics as necessary depending on the opposition in an attempt to balance their team and get an advantage. I agree with the notion that sentiment did play its part in Park's selection though, and I didn't think he should've started, really. you can argue he was in there on merit far more than just sentiment and that's 100% right, but it just didn't feel right in the lead up. Berbatov or Tevez should've been the call. wonder if the decision might've been different without the circus surrounding Tevez tbh.

Originally Posted by utd99

Certainly, but when you sign a player who is as raw and untested as Ronaldo was, then you can never be quite certain how they will develop. In this instance, 5 years later, we have a player who is so good going forward that he must be included, and so poor at defending that he must be accomodated for. Hence the dilemma.

yes - but he knew that 4 years later - ie last year and goes and spends £30m on a centre forward - who is even worse at defending than Ronaldo. And where is that the player for the biggest game of the season ? Benched.

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

I can see why he'd of left him out of the Arsenal games, they're soft as shite & he wanted some power in there. Fair enough. It worked a treat as well, however, it was a home & away contest & the 2nd game we would be counter attacking.

In a one off, 90min game, against Spanish oppo - against whom we traditionally struggle to score against, why the £#%&! would you want more of the same? 1 goal in the last 7 games against Spanish sides (I think) & we were playing the very best of them as well after literally squeaking past them last season. Berbatov should have played, because he'd of kept the ball - but Fergie bottled it & played Park who did sweet £#%&! all. I don't give a £#%&! if he works hard off the ball or his movement is great, he can't trap a football & retain possesion. We used to be a side that passed, and passed & passed & engineered situations where our wingers would get one on one with their counterparts & create something. We've become pragmatic at capitalising on others mistakes & 'keeping it solid' ourselves. The potential of the side is unequalled, the squad is huge & packed with talent, and it's stifled to play this way.

I think it's a bit harsh to call it a bottle job not to have selected Berbatov. When he paid £30m for him last summer, I suspect Fergie would fully have expected to use him in any game of this sort. But after the season he's had it would have been a gamble to start him. Not only has he failed to score against any top sides, he struggled to make an impact in pretty much every big game he played. Freshest in the memory, of course, would have been the Inter games, when he was very disappointing. He played fairly well in Porto, but again with little attacking threat. If someone isn't scoring or contributing much to the attack, while offering next to nothing in terms of defensive imput, energy or pace on the break, they're hardly making themselves a must for a match against a side like Barca.

Maybe Berbatov would have had a good game and the result may have been different, but it's not like Fergie didn't have a long list of understandable reasons not to pick him.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I think it's a bit harsh to call it a bottle job not to have selected Berbatov. When he paid £30m for him last summer, I suspect Fergie would fully have expected to use him in any game of this sort. But after the season he's had it would have been a gamble to start him. Not only has he failed to score against any top sides, he struggled to make an impact in pretty much every big game he played. Freshest in the memory, of course, would have been the Inter games, when he was very disappointing. He played fairly well in Porto, but again with little attacking threat. If someone isn't scoring or contributing much to the attack, while offering next to nothing in terms of defensive imput, energy or pace on the break, they're hardly making themselves a must for a match against a side like Barca.

Maybe Berbatov would have had a good game and the result may have been different, but it's not like Fergie didn't have a long list of understandable reasons not to pick him.

He could have picked Tevez for all I care, it was the fact he picked Park to "do a job" as opposed to making a Barca side shorn of 3/4's of their first choice defence worry about us.

i think we should all just be grateful that we completely out played the italian champions on thier own pitch with just 10 men

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

i think we should all just be grateful that we completely out played the italian champions on thier own pitch with just 10 men

I think you'd have to actually score a goal to completely outplay them. Maybe with a better contribution from Berbatov we'd have done just that.

we completely outplayed Inter on their own pitch. surprised you don't think so tbh

we completely and utterly outplayed Arsenal in Cardiff in 2005. what do you reckon?