Does anyone expect anything different from us in Europe next year?

If we play Barca again (which we probably will have to if we want to win it) we'll set up much the same again. Though Hargreaves (and probably Fletcher) would have made a big difference.

We did it twice against Barca last year and survived without conceding, we tried to do the same again this time. The first goal was always going to be key. Forget the abject display, we weren't set up to come from behind and it showed. If we scored first, we'd have won. Instead, they can do what they do best, stroking the ball around with no pressure to go forward, whilst we're left with Park as part of an unfamiliar attacking trio.

One startling similarity is what happened at Arsenal away this year. We set up to defend, and Arsenal dominated early doors (like we did in Rome), a goal against the run of play and suddenly they couldn't string two passes together and the tie was over.

I think it was Ether that called it by saying we haven't competed with Barca's midfield in all 3 games and to come out of it with 1 European cup a piece is a great result all things considered. We will play exactly the same again next year in Europe if we play them - hoping to nick the first goal - Ferguson knows he doesn't have time on his side to re-think our European tactics once more.

Originally Posted by Fatboy Shrek

If we play Barca again (which we probably will have to if we want to win it) we'll set up much the same again. Though Hargreaves (and probably Fletcher) would have made a big difference.

We did it twice against Barca last year and survived without conceding, we tried to do the same again this time. The first goal was always going to be key. Forget the abject display, we weren't set up to come from behind and it showed. If we scored first, we'd have won. Instead, they can do what they do best, stroking the ball around with no pressure to go forward, whilst we're left with Park as part of an unfamiliar attacking trio.

One startling similarity is what happened at Arsenal away this year. We set up to defend, and Arsenal dominated early doors (like we did in Rome), a goal against the run of play and suddenly they couldn't string two passes together and the tie was over.

I think it was Ether that called it by saying we haven't competed with Barca's midfield in all 3 games and to come out of it with 1 European cup a piece is a great result all things considered. We will play exactly the same again next year in Europe if we play them - hoping to nick the first goal - Ferguson knows he doesn't have time on his side to re-think our European tactics once more.

Agree 100% with this. A fit Hargreaves next season will be a huge difference.
I've not had chance to have a look at the press coverage since i got back (thank £#%&!) but i seem to get the impression that some are intimating we need wholesale changes?!? As I can see there is one team in Europe currently better than us and I really don't think theres that much in it-as you say, had we have scored first then we would have won, i'm sure of that.

I think we got everything wrong on weds.

the tactics and team selection played into their hands. As you said, we seemed more concerned with stopping them play rather than playing to our own strengths. Something so simple as switching messi inside and putting eto'o wide seemed to completly stump us.

If park had slid in and put that rebound into the net early, then we're flying. they can't play keep-ball all day because they need to score and we gain confidence. instead we conceeded a shocking goal from their first attack and lost the plot.

iniesta/xavi pass the ball shorter distances than hargy takes to control it.

Really who we missed was Scholes. He's better than both of them. Just a pity about his fitness.

What got me was see two great players getting frustrated because they were basically in each others positions i.e. Rooney and Ron.

Giggs should've gone at halftime but it would've detroyed him. Park should'nt have started. Both probably have sentiment to thank for their inclusions but 99% on here had them in their lineups.

The big thing for me was how United reacted at 1-0. Forget about tactics that was more a mental problem. Scholes at 1-0 down would've been perfect at just getting the passing game going instead of Carrick panicking and trying to play the one perfect pass.

we competed very well with Barcelona at Old Trafford until the closing stages

and we scored two early goals at Emirates remember, not just one. Arsenal hadn't really actually had a chance before then either ims


my tactics would be simple enough - to overload the midfield. Barcelona set up to stop us playing our game but we just decided to carry on regardless. if we lost because of tactics (rather than not turning up), then that's why we lost imo; we had a couple of flurries after they scored, but by then the forwards were already looking isolated and we should've gone back to a 5 straight away, or at least the tweaked 4-4-2 that has brought us so much joy down the years. Barcelona adjusted to us (and varied their tactics and positioning superbly), so why didn't we adjust to them?

it's not even as if we aren't used to playing the way we should have either.
the controlled and progressive possession (the signs of it anyway) we had in the 10 or 15 minutes before their 2nd has been a major strength of ours this season and is basically what our success has been based on; it is what we should've been doing from the moment they had taken the lead.

Originally Posted by armchair

iniesta/xavi pass the ball shorter distances than hargy takes to control it.

Really who we missed was Scholes. He's better than both of them. Just a pity about his fitness.

What got me was see two great players getting frustrated because they were basically in each others positions i.e. Rooney and Ron.

Giggs should've gone at halftime but it would've detroyed him. Park should'nt have started. Both probably have sentiment to thank for their inclusions but 99% on here had them in their lineups.

The big thing for me was how United reacted at 1-0. Forget about tactics that was more a mental problem. Scholes at 1-0 down would've been perfect at just getting the passing game going instead of Carrick panicking and trying to play the one perfect pass.

That was the major factor-our mental weakness; I honestly thought this team was stronger than that and thats why I was very confident of victory. When we went 1-0 down we regressed to how we played against Madrid in the early 00's-in complete awe and showing far too much respect.

NB Iniesta is a genius

Originally Posted by armchair

iniesta/xavi pass the ball shorter distances than hargy takes to control it.

Really who we missed was Scholes. He's better than both of them. Just a pity about his fitness.

What got me was see two great players getting frustrated because they were basically in each others positions i.e. Rooney and Ron.

Giggs should've gone at halftime but it would've detroyed him. Park should'nt have started. Both probably have sentiment to thank for their inclusions but 99% on here had them in their lineups.

The big thing for me was how United reacted at 1-0. Forget about tactics that was more a mental problem. Scholes at 1-0 down would've been perfect at just getting the passing game going instead of Carrick panicking and trying to play the one perfect pass.

Lack of midfield options was the crux of the problem, even those selecting their teams on here, the options for a 3 man midfield (which it was always going to be) were Carrick, Anderson, Scholes and Giggs. Carrick was a no-brainer, Anderson had to be in for hi 'energy' although, on merit, he would be nowhere near the side if there were any other options. The decline of Paul Scholes this season has been so dramatic that I still wouldn't have picked him now, despite what happened. Which meant Giggs had to play, despite his rolling back of the years this season, he shouldn't be starting in games of this manner.

All of this meant that none of us, Fergie included, had sufficient faith in the midfield to compete or to join up with the attack, hence the inclusion of Park from almost everyone. If the midfield 3 had been Carrick, Fletcher and Hargreaves, I doubt Park would've got anywhere near.

When it was clear the middle of the park was £#%&!ed (after about 15 minutes) and we needed some form of presence in there to replace either Anderson or Giggs what did we have on the bench? a 34 year old Scholes, who was almost certain to pick up 2 yellows if he played for any more than 15 minutes.

For me this highlights just what a weakness our current pool of midfielders can be and has been for large parts of the season due to injuries and suspensions. Unless we strengthen, it's conceivable that big John O'Shea could find himself in there next season, if only to make up the numbers.

It's noticeable that in the games we have been behind in this run in, it has been necessary to empty the midfield and flood the final third, this because we have no-one capable of changing the game in midfield. We have got very lucky on most occasions. The strikers haven't weighed in as they should, admittedly, but I think the finger has to be pointed at the midfield, as quite often the problem has stemmed from a lack of support for the front men, imo.

ok i havent said this yet but what does wednesday say about rooney and saf.

saf had £90m worth of strikers at his disposal and didnt start one of them as a striker. instead he started ronaldo.

does he now think rooney is good enough to play upfront?
it wasnt like alves was playing so who was rooney trying to keep at bay in rome?

why are we setting up to stop the opposition as opposed to actually setting up to play football?

park in the big ecl games is united adjusting to stop the opposition no play our own football and i cant understand it...
i cant see barcelona playing keita in eto's position to stop united etc.

something very worrying there.

I think we all thought that if we got in at halftime with 1-0 that there would be a tremendous backlash in the second half and goals for both sides. Never happened

Barcelona set up to stop us playing. Once they scored we didn't adjust. Simple as that.

Therefore I would expect us to be able to adjust tactically during the game necxt time around. Messi moves into midfield? We follow him. Barcelona drop into a 5 man line at the back? Ferdinand joins in further forward. And so on. Didn't happen. Barcelona adjusted to us. We did not do the same.

By the logic of saying that our wide attackers were only used that way to stop Barcelona then Henry did a fine job stopping O'Shea. Well done Henry.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

I think we got everything wrong on weds.

the tactics and team selection played into their hands. As you said, we seemed more concerned with stopping them play rather than playing to our own strengths. Something so simple as switching messi inside and putting eto'o wide seemed to completly stump us.

If park had slid in and put that rebound into the net early, then we're flying. they can't play keep-ball all day because they need to score and we gain confidence. instead we conceeded a shocking goal from their first attack and lost the plot.

Agreed

which Italian teams are in europe this year?

am i right in thinking roma finished 5th?

Originally Posted by Blagger

which Italian teams are in europe this year?

am i right in thinking roma finished 5th?

Inter
Juve
milan
fiorentina

25 games unbeaten in Europe until the final does not suggest that a major overhaul is needed. This last 3 years, 2 finals and a semi is the best European run in our history.



Starting the game with only Rooney and Ronaldo as true goal threats limits the attacking potential, means we rely too much on moments of individual brilliance, mainly from Ronaldo as evidenced by his goals at Porto and Arsenal.

Originally Posted by Tiberian

25 games unbeaten in Europe until the final does not suggest that a major overhaul is needed. This last 3 years, 2 finals and a semi is the best European run in our history.

true, but it's the manner of our play which is a concern. we're efficient, we do enough - with exceptions, we do not dominate as we could.


the intensity in that game from barca was instructive. they were high-energy everywhere. for all their undoubted class and individual ability, they played that game with the attitude of a non-league team giving it a go with every ounce of strength: they harried, chased and fought, they were hungry and they were intensely up for the fight. united had no answer, tbh. until scholes came on there was virtually no sense of fight in us. it was as if we expected to cruise through the game and were stunned that barca were so up for it.

remember rio's attitude towards torres last year, giving him the big £#%&! off after dumping him into the advertising hoardings? remember tevez with terry, drogba and pretty much the whole chelsea team in moscow last year? remember anderson giving gerrard the what they £#%&! is you problem look last year? that's the attitude we're missing. we were £#%&!ing meek in rome. limp. insipid. flaccid. that's what £#%&!ed me off about it.

i love carrick and fletcher, great players. i think berbles is an artist and a joy to watch. i love giggs to death. but apart from rooney and - sometimes - vidic there's no bite to us most of the time. we need to address that imo. it's something fergie's always been aware of, though, and i'm sure it's something he's keen to remedy.

Originally Posted by borsuk

true, but it's the manner of our play which is a concern. we're efficient, we do enough - with exceptions, we do not dominate as we could.


the intensity in that game from barca was instructive. they were high-energy everywhere. for all their undoubted class and individual ability, they played that game with the attitude of a non-league team giving it a go with every ounce of strength: they harried, chased and fought, they were hungry and they were intensely up for the fight. united had no answer, tbh. until scholes came on there was virtually no sense of fight in us. it was as if we expected to cruise through the game and were stunned that barca were so up for it.

remember rio's attitude towards torres last year, giving him the big £#%&! off after dumping him into the advertising hoardings? remember tevez with terry, drogba and pretty much the whole chelsea team in moscow last year? remember anderson giving gerrard the what they £#%&! is you problem look last year? that's the attitude we're missing. we were £#%&!ing meek in rome. limp. insipid. flaccid. that's what £#%&!ed me off about it.

i love carrick and fletcher, great players. i think berbles is an artist and a joy to watch. i love giggs to death. but apart from rooney and - sometimes - vidic there's no bite to us most of the time. we need to address that imo. it's something fergie's always been aware of, though, and i'm sure it's something he's keen to remedy.

Well said.

As for 'do you expect anything different in europe next year'?

yes, i do.

We won't reach the final again.

Originally Posted by borsuk

true, but it's the manner of our play which is a concern. we're efficient, we do enough - with exceptions, we do not dominate as we could.


the intensity in that game from barca was instructive. they were high-energy everywhere. for all their undoubted class and individual ability, they played that game with the attitude of a non-league team giving it a go with every ounce of strength: they harried, chased and fought, they were hungry and they were intensely up for the fight. united had no answer, tbh. until scholes came on there was virtually no sense of fight in us. it was as if we expected to cruise through the game and were stunned that barca were so up for it.

remember rio's attitude towards torres last year, giving him the big £#%&! off after dumping him into the advertising hoardings? remember tevez with terry, drogba and pretty much the whole chelsea team in moscow last year? remember anderson giving gerrard the what they £#%&! is you problem look last year? that's the attitude we're missing. we were £#%&!ing meek in rome. limp. insipid. flaccid. that's what £#%&!ed me off about it.

i love carrick and fletcher, great players. i think berbles is an artist and a joy to watch. i love giggs to death. but apart from rooney and - sometimes - vidic there's no bite to us most of the time. we need to address that imo. it's something fergie's always been aware of, though, and i'm sure it's something he's keen to remedy.

All true enough.... but if Wes was fit, and Hargreaves... it makes a lot more bite available.

Fergie just royally £#%&!ed up playing Giggs so high & Park at all. Against a team that pass it so well, we either needed to decide to press them constantly or pass the ball & retain it ourselves. We did neither & in being caught between tactics it left us open to be shafted by them playing their own game.

I can't believe the way we played, seriously £#%&!ed off with Fergie playing that formation & personnel. Such an opportunity to take them on, they were missing 3/4's of their £#%&!ing defence & we clearly very nervous until they scored with their first attack.

Originally Posted by Baron_van_Marlon

All true enough.... but if Wes was fit, and Hargreaves... it makes a lot more bite available.

Fergie just royally £#%&!ed up playing Giggs so high & Park at all. Against a team that pass it so well, we either needed to decide to press them constantly or pass the ball & retain it ourselves. We did neither & in being caught between tactics it left us open to be shafted by them playing their own game.

I can't believe the way we played, seriously £#%&!ed off with Fergie playing that formation & personnel. Such an opportunity to take them on, they were missing 3/4's of their £#%&!ing defence & we clearly very nervous until they scored with their first attack.

at some point you all have to accept that Barcelona changed their game to play us, and that we had no answer; we did not adjust to what was happening on the pitch. yes we didn't get in their faces, that much is obvious. but it was because they dominated the game tactically.

the doubts I posted on here about starting with Park proved spot on. but the reality is that virtually everyone picked our starting XI, and the substitutions were all obvious as well. now throw in the switching of Park and Rooney, followed by the shifting of Ronaldo to the wide, and it becomes pretty clear exactly why Guardiola said before the game that he knew how United would play, and why he said after that adjusting his tactics to stop us playing was the key to winning. we were utterly predictable.

it's not rocket science. we £#%&!ed the game up tactically. had the passing been sharper or even just the inspiration been higher we might've got away with it. let's face it, we were very close to taking the lead a couple of times. but even if the line up was wrong, the real problem was that we didn't adjust to what they were doing.

he'll defo change it next year, when we went out to Milan because the squad wasn't big enough he remedied that instantly and we won it the following year