Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
I still think United could have won both matches.
Barca were there for the taking in Rome and had weaknesses at Wembley as well.
The fact they got knocked out off us and Inter in 08 and 2010 is good evidence of my point.
Chelsea did them last year with barely a threat ffs, and even when Barca are right on blob the difference is always made by taking your chances when they come - the Ramires goal for Chelsea was brilliant, and the other night that Milan fella was clean through and hit the post when he should have scored.
|
'08 was a very different Barca side, tbf. It was pre-Pep and they didn't have anywhere near the same intensity to their play.
Of course there's some regret about both finals. Heading into Rome I fancied us and I think we may even have been marginally the better side at that point. But it was an absolute no-show, which was disappointing and shocking in equal measure. I never thought we could be that poor in a final. Wembley I think Barca would always have been too strong, although Fergie made a mess of his tactics/decisions on the night, despite a more valiant effort from the players.
They've got weaknesses, sure. But that Niang miss at Camp Nou was almost Milan's only clear-cut chance. Just like Ramires' goal was virtually Chelsea's only attempt on target across the two games before Torres exploited Barca's gaps in injury time. They don't give up as many opportunities as people suggest, imo (partly because they barely let you have the ball) which is why you have to be highly clinical to have any chance at beating them.