Match report and player ratings from La Gazzetta

Inter, out with their heads high

For the third consecutive year, Inter fell in the round of 16 of the Champions League. They lost 2-0 at Old Trafford, at the hands of Vidic and Cristiano Ronaldo. Inter missed many chances to score and hit the post twice (Ibra and Adriano). Manchester United proved to be a giant

MANCHESTER (UK), 11 March 2009 - Inter are out of the European competitions and for the third consecutive year, it happened in the round of 16 of the Champions League. Reigning champions Manchester United secured the pass to the quarterfinals (2-0) with goals from Vidic and Ronaldo, authors of a very severe punishment for the Nerazzurri, and put on a display of technical superiority. And indeed, Ibrahimovic's attempt that smashed on the crossbar, Adriano's post and four other chances that barely missed the target deserved a bit of good luck.

MARIO - Mourinho's initial strategy was to cover as much as he could. Balotelli took Mancini's place on the pitch as a general outside player (that is, an added fullback if need be). Ferguson made three changes in comparison with the first match: Vidic in defence (after having been disqualified), Scholes instead of Fletcher in the centre and Rooney in the position that two weeks ago belonged to Giggs (with Park on the left). It was the same module from the 0-0 in Italy, but given the fact that the goal came quite quickly, in 4 minutes they opted for a more comfortable 4-4-2.

DOWN QUICKLY - Giggs kicked the corner, Vieira slipped and left Vidic clear to finish the ball in with an easy header. It was a bucket of ice for Inter, who needed a good 20 minutes to recover from it. The main danger came along the wings: not only Ronaldo's outbursts, but also Giggs' experience (793 matches as a Red Devil), who was brilliant at opening spaces for his team-mates. The foreseeable Devils earthquake produced, apart from the goal, a few moves that will make it to many match highlights, such Samuel's handball, a less glamorous touch from Stankovic, and a fantastic chance that O'Shea allowed to go up in smoke, with the help of Julio Cesar.

SO MANY ERRORS - As for the rest, Mourinho had already anticipated it: "They will start strong. If they score first we must remain calm; all we need is one goal." It seemed like a prophecy. Inter reacted and began to attack; however, they were missing the support that would allow Ibra to move the ball well for the rest of the team, and in the first half, they only had four good chances that posed some threat for Van der Sar: the Swede's header that smashed on the crossbar, Stankovic's cannonball that was deflected to a corner (not called), Deki's soft deflection (inspired by Ibra), and Zlatan's diagonal kick from an assist by Balotelli. Those were great chances, quite different from what happened during the first round.

THE BLOW - Playing well there was a chance to keep Ferguson's two midfielders in check. Besides, United's fullbacks were not having their best day, so much so that O'Shea had to resort to "slicing" Mario. Those were some good -albeit deceptive- minutes of play. If we had to put the blame on something, it would be on having given a war machine like Manchester United a second chance. In the second half, Muntari took over a lacklustre Vieira in the diamond formation. But just like in the first half, United only needed 4 minutes: Giggs took care by himself of half of the defensive line and Rooney crossed to Ronaldo, who scored his first Champions League goal this year.

BLOW NUMBER TWO - Mourinho tried to keep the dream alive adding Adriano to the Nerazzurro attack. It was the right decision, because the Emperor volleyed a brilliant cross one hour into the match. True that Berbatov saved the 3-0 when he deflected a pelt from Rooney, but the infamous "details" from the lad from Setubal made things easier for Inter on their most difficult evening of the season. Ibrahimovic still found another attempt that was cleared by Evra when it looked like a sure goal, and if it weren't for Julio Cesar, Ronaldo would have increased the burden on Mourinho's shoulders. It just wasn't the night for Inter, who just weren't tonight of the same stature as their opponent.

I'm guessing 'anonimo' means what I think it does.

Originally Posted by armchair

I'm guessing 'anonimo' means what I think it does.

Not flattering that, is it.

Seems like a fair assessment to me. Thumbs up for the Italian journalists. I've often been tempted to take Italian lessons just so I can read La Gazzetta

a-domino, actually.

its the Italian pizza scale (whereby they compare players to brands of Pizza).

Top of the range (for UK players) is Pizza Express, then Goodfellas, Pizza Hut (filled crust), PIzza Hut normal range, moving down to Papa Johns, Dominos etc...

spot on imo. spot on.


anyone know what 'anomino' means???

Originally Posted by marlo

spot on imo. spot on.


anyone know what 'anomino' means???

Oh £#%&!, I take it back if this £#%&!wit agrees with it.

Originally Posted by dunk

Oh £#%&!, I take it back if this £#%&!wit agrees with it.

Originally Posted by marlo

What were the ratings for Inter then?

Could you translate the ratings please Serenity?

Not in anyway bias either.

I suppose because it's Italian makes it more valid than the Star or the NOTW.

Scholes didn't have a 5.5 game.

Wonder what the ratings for the Milan players were? Probably 9's and 10's.

the Swede's header that smashed on the crossbar

well, it did bobble up onto the top of the bar I suppose

smashed ffs

gazetta de la mirror

Smashed it was a £#%&!ing terrible miss.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

It just wasn't the night for Inter, who just weren't tonight of the same stature as their opponent.

Should've just opened and closed with that line.

Originally Posted by sullers

Not in anyway bias either.

I suppose because it's Italian makes it more valid than the Star or the NOTW.

The player ratings in Italy are taken much more seriously than in England, where they are, generally speaking, a complete joke. You talk to anyone who has worked in football in both countries and they will tell you the same thing. I think you can also say the same of the press coverage of football as a whole, which in England is much more focused on personalities and sensationalism. To compare the coverage of La Gazzetta - which, despite not quite being what it once was, is still amongst the most respected sports papers in the world, the paper of Gianni Brera, and one of the national symbols of Italy - to that of the worst of the British tabloids is quite frankly ridiculous.

Scholes didn't have a 5.5 game.

Wonder what the ratings for the Milan players were? Probably 9's and 10's.

Inter as a team got a 6, Mourinho a 5, while their highest rated player was Julio Cesar with a 7, and the lowest Vieira with a 4.

I disagree on Scholes also. He had a poor match, struggling with the physical requirements of his role - not able to get forward to support the attack as required, ineffective in pressing and controlling the space in the midfield, and struggling to regain his defensive position when he did get forward - and unusually wayward with his passing. The fact that Carrick had to cover for Scholes' vulnerabilities, and also the way that he seems to defer to Scholes when they play together, also impeded Carrick's game, I think.

It was a poor performance. I was glad to hear Fergie say so.

Started off great but the euphoria of being one up became nerves and the gravity of the situation seemed to get to them. Happened again at 2-0. Also Inter only started playing at 1-0.

Originally Posted by sullers

Not in anyway bias either.

I suppose because it's Italian makes it more valid than the Star or the NOTW.

Scholes didn't have a 5.5 game.

Wonder what the ratings for the Milan players were? Probably 9's and 10's.

The Italian media are usually very critical, irrelevant if it's one of their own.

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

The player ratings in Italy are taken much more seriously than in England, where they are, generally speaking, a complete joke. You talk to anyone who has worked in football in both countries and they will tell you the same thing. I think you can also say the same of the press coverage of football as a whole, which in England is much more focused on personalities and sensationalism. To compare the coverage of La Gazzetta - which, despite not quite being what it once was, is still amongst the most respected sports papers in the world, the paper of Gianni Brera, and one of the national symbols of Italy - to that of the worst of the British tabloids is quite frankly ridiculous.Inter as a team got a 6, Mourinho a 5, while their highest rated player was Julio Cesar with a 7, and the lowest Vieira with a 4.
.

ouch

Originally Posted by Serenity Now

The player ratings in Italy are taken much more seriously than in England, where they are, generally speaking, a complete joke. You talk to anyone who has worked in football in both countries and they will tell you the same thing. I think you can also say the same of the press coverage of football as a whole, which in England is much more focused on personalities and sensationalism. To compare the coverage of La Gazzetta - which, despite not quite being what it once was, is still amongst the most respected sports papers in the world, the paper of Gianni Brera, and one of the national symbols of Italy - to that of the worst of the British tabloids is quite frankly ridiculous.Inter as a team got a 6, Mourinho a 5, while their highest rated player was Julio Cesar with a 7, and the lowest Vieira with a 4.

I disagree on Scholes also. He had a poor match, struggling with the physical requirements of his role - not able to get forward to support the attack as required, ineffective in pressing and controlling the space in the midfield, and struggling to regain his defensive position when he did get forward - and unusually wayward with his passing. The fact that Carrick had to cover for Scholes' vulnerabilities, and also the way that he seems to defer to Scholes when they play together, also impeded Carrick's game, I think.

Fair enough. I didn't know they were overly critical and I know they take their football journalism seriously. I still think they have a tone of resentment with the English mind.

I just enjoyed Ginge's 1st half passes.

anyone who takes seriously marks out of 10 for individual players in a football match is quite frankly being ridiculous

it would make more sense to do an exit poll of eveyone in the ground

football is about opinions

and only one player got part of a mark. what happened, did they run out of commas?