we wont win the champions league while ferguson is still in charge

did i watch the milan game? i am really not sure now tbh.

Originally Posted by puressence

we wont win the champions league while ferguson is still in charge

good to know. ta.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

You're right. I do believe we'd have beaten Milan with Rio and Vidic fit - especially at OT. If they were fit for the first leg I think we'd have taken at least a two goal lead to Milan and would've gone through.

However, I do feel that Fergie stifles us sometimes. Benfica at home until they scored? Lille at home and away? A better side would've knocked us out that night at OT.
On the whole, in Europe and the big Premiership games, we are not aggressive and positive enough and don't let the flair players express themselves anywhere near their potential.

agreed, i know why we play that way, its because fergie cannot fly forward knowing that wece got carrick sitting, now with hargreaves and carrick we can be more expansive and trust our instincts

his record for the funds and players he has had in his hands in europe is a disgrace

Also, there are times when - despite your own problems - you simply have to concede that the other side played well and deserve to go through.

Milan were magnificant in the first half in Italy. You may argue that we invited them on and caused many of our own problems and you'd be right, but that's not Milan's fault. They took advantage of it superbly and never let up.
Ronaldo was taught a lesson by Gatusso, Carrick's inexperience showed against Seedorf and Milan pushed their full backs up knowing full well we had our two first choice full backs out.

It's all very well saying 'attack attack attack', but you can't be naive enough to think that you can just attack relentlessly.

A positive approach to the game and an aggressive assertion on the game is needed with discipline from the disciplined players and flair from the flair playes.
I'm all for playing to your strengths and our strength is undoubtedly attack, but you need the balance and 'street smart' or you get found out.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

It's all very well saying 'attack attack attack', but you can't be naive enough to think that you can just attack relentlessly.

A positive approach to the game and an aggressive assertion on the game is needed with discipline from the disciplined players and flair from the flair playes.
I'm all for playing to your strengths and our strength is undoubtedly attack, but you need the balance and 'street smart' or you get found out.

Well we tried the disciplined and controlled approach and got tonked, I'd rather we went down fighting than with a whimper, which is what has seemed to happen in Europe for the last few years.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Well we tried the disciplined and controlled approach and got tonked,

If you're referring to the game in Milan, I'd say that out team was neither disciplined nor controlled. The defence especially was a £#%&!ing shambles.

JC - Spot on assesment there.

Originally Posted by The Greatest

agreed, i know why we play that way, its because fergie cannot fly forward knowing that wece got carrick sitting, now with hargreaves and carrick we can be more expansive and trust our instincts

Yup.

I watched the Premiership years on sky the other day.

It was 1996 and boy did Newcastle blow that league. We did so well to catch up, but to close a gap the others have to faulter.

They were scintilating at times, but it was their total naivity that cost them. It was epitomised by the night we beat them at ST James Park.

They just kept coming and coming and coming, they couldn't break through -but just kept coming. At no point did they see that the game would see a spell where we'd come into the it, having weathered the storm.
The Eric goal caught them totally off guard and they just didn't see it coming.

They seemed unable (or unwillingly) to close out a game. Keegan even said they wouldn't change the way they play. Admirable maybe, naive and stupid - certainly.
It cost them that 4-3 at Anfield, 3-3 at City, 0-1 against us.
They seemed so focussed on doing it 'their way' that it was costing them.
They couldn't see that you can still be attractive and kunckle down when you need to and, if you win it, people will take an overview of the season and still say you played the best football. We did that this season.

We did it in 99.

It'll be remembered for our memorable play, but we romanticise things - remember Inter away?
We sat back and took a barrage from them. It's only because we went through and won it that no one remembers we totally sat back in that game. It doesn't show that on the Treble DVD.
Middlesbrough away in the run in was another dire 1-0 win. This season at City, again. You have to do that sometimes!

Newcastle seemed to finally catch onto that after one 4-3 defeat too many. They won 1-0 at Leeds and were on the way to doing the same at Forest until a wonder goal equaliser.
They were learning, but it was too late.

I know we're not Newcastle, but, for me, that's the architype example of being attacking, but totally naive and it cost them dearly.

You need to adopt a style of play to your strengths, ofcourse. We need to attack, it's our thing! But we also need to be disciplined when necessary and occasionally sit back.

Occasionally.

we were absolutely knackered from the roma home game on. i think the everton result was a miracle, tbh, given the exhaustion of the squad. and i don't think ronnie was taught a lesson by gattuso - i think he had been simply run into the ground by that stage of the season. the same goes for giggs and scholes.

the signings we've made will enable us to cope much better with the number of games we have to play. that will be the main difference next season, imho.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Well we tried the disciplined and controlled approach and got tonked, I'd rather we went down fighting than with a whimper, which is what has seemed to happen in Europe for the last few years.

You mean in Milan?

Well, yeah. We got tonked because we sat back with a injury ravaged defence, that's a mistake. Sure. It wasn't just the defence though, the midfield was poor. We couldn't get hold of the ball and that only invites more pressure.

Milan is not the best example because of the injury problems.

It's not about sitting back and being rigidly disciplined throughout the game, You have to allow these lads to express themselves, but to think you can just attack attack attack is naive. It's dismissive of the opposition. Milan could simply argue that that's what they did and they did it better and went through. You're in Milan against Kaka and co, they will come at you, they will create chances and they will have long periods of dominance.

Originally Posted by borsuk

we were absolutely knackered from the roma home game on. i think the everton result was a miracle, tbh, given the exhaustion of the squad. and i don't think ronnie was taught a lesson by gattuso - i think he had been simply run into the ground by that stage of the season. the same goes for giggs and scholes.

the signings we've made will enable us to cope much better with the number of games we have to play. that will be the main difference next season, imho.

Ok, maybe 'taught a lesson' is a bit harsh. But there's no doubt Gatusso won the personal battle, tired or not.

It was a bit of a reality check for him and it'll do him good. He was being touted as the best in the world before that tie, but the two games proved he still has a lot to learn and is not the finished article.

But that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

You're right. I do believe we'd have beaten Milan with Rio and Vidic fit - especially at OT. If they were fit for the first leg I think we'd have taken at least a two goal lead to Milan and would've gone through.

However, I do feel that Fergie stifles us sometimes. Benfica at home until they scored? Lille at home and away? A better side would've knocked us out that night at OT.
On the whole, in Europe and the big Premiership games, we are not aggressive and positive enough and don't let the flair players express themselves anywhere near their potential.

Two points.

a) We DID beat Milan at OT.

b) I doubt very much that having Rio in instead of Wes Brown would've made THAT much difference. Apart from him, we had pretty much as strong team as we could (minus Gary who hadn't played for months).

We got totally outplayed. Simple. As soon as they scored the first, there was only one winner.

the players looked scared ....

what about benfice away this season


gary neville coming over to the bench asking where are players playing cos no £#%&!er knew

Oh,for the record, we had a stronger team for the away leg than the home leg. FACT.

Heinze back to left back and Vidic replacing Evra.

Originally Posted by koppas

Oh,for the record, we had a stronger team for the away leg than the home leg. FACT.

Heinze back to left back and Vidic replacing Evra.

but wasn't vidic injured?

Originally Posted by koppas

Two points.

a) We DID beat Milan at OT.

b) I doubt very much that having Rio in instead of Wes Brown would've made THAT much difference. Apart from him, we had pretty much as strong team as we could (minus Gary who hadn't played for months).

We got totally outplayed. Simple. As soon as they scored the first, there was only one winner.

a) I never said we didn't. I meant we'd have beaten Milan in the tie. Do you really think I didn't remember that we beat them at home or something?
We conceded two away goals. Both were completely avoidable. Kaka wouldn't have ghosted past Rio like he did Heinze and I doubt a settled defence would've conceded that disasterous second goal (which was also an indirect result of panic caused the concession of the first in the first place) This was the key. It gave Milan something to go for at home. Had we won by two or even three clear goals at home then we'd have probably gone through.

b) I think it would. Not just in terms of Rio being better than Wes. I don't mean a rushed back Rio to partner a rushed back Vidic either. I mean the continuation of a settle centre half pairing. It's all moot because they did get injured, but had they not and were still playing up to and including the Milan tie then I think we'd have gone through.

Originally Posted by koppas

b) I doubt very much that having Rio in instead of Wes Brown would've made THAT much difference. Apart from him, we had pretty much as strong team as we could (minus Gary who hadn't played for months).

We got totally outplayed. Simple. As soon as they scored the first, there was only one winner.

They scored first because of panic defending. Had a fully match fit Vidic and Rio been playing, that simply wouldn't have happened. Without the width provided by Gary Nevile and Evra, we couldn't double up on their full backs meaning Ronaldo rarely had any options running past him, so either had to play the ball into midfield, or try and take on two players. Instead, we had O'Shea mincing around right back, who was his usually ineffectual self.

Having Rio and Nevile would have made a massive difference, both to how we defended and how we attacked. But it wasn't meant to be.

Originally Posted by The Return of JC

a) I never said we didn't. I meant we'd have beaten Milan in the tie. Do you really think I didn't remember that we beat them at home or something?
We conceded two away goals. Both were completely avoidable. Kaka wouldn't have ghosted past Rio like he did Heinze and I doubt a settled defence would've conceded that disasterous second goal (which was also an indirect result of panic caused the concession of the first in the first place) This was the key. It gave Milan something to go for at home. Had we won by two or even three clear goals at home then we'd have probably gone through.

b) I think it would. Not just in terms of Rio being better than Wes. I don't mean a rushed back Rio to partner a rushed back Vidic either. I mean the continuation of a settle centre half pairing. It's all moot because they did get injured, but had they not and were still playing up to and including the Milan tie then I think we'd have gone through.

"I do believe we wouldn't beaten Milan - especially at OT"

Originally Posted by koppas

"I do believe we wouldn't beaten Milan - especially at OT"

what??!!

Sorry,

"I do believe we WOULD have...etc".