sorry, I don't get this "united's best chance to win it since..." line

Originally Posted by dodger

Just had this argument with a know nothign at work

and......? :0)

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

. Ferguson will know very well that 0-0 in Rome IS a good result.

It is NOT. I guarantee you if we draw 0-0 in Rome we will go out on away goals.

the only team to win both legs of their last 16 tie was United

we've no chance

Originally Posted by jem

and......? :0)

He remains in ignorance.

Originally Posted by jem

ah, the dreamily optimistic approach.




and 0-0 away is not a good result. we need away goals.

0-0 away IS a good result. But away goals are nice.

I think we can pick these off, but not sure 4-4-2 is the way to go about it - which is just as well, really, cus thankfully we're unlikely to be using it!

4-5-1 is aimed at overwhelmin the other teams midfield in order to give us control of a match (or block their progress is we're struggling).

An actual defensive approach may actually suit us because we lure teams onto us by defending and then we break with speed into the vast spaces left behind. This tactic made popular by real defensive teams like Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

This would actually benefit us, instead we get the ball and push up allowing the other team to defend deep and then break on us, we tend to control the game, but our players struggle to break down defences who are packed up tight and we leave ourselves vulnerable on the break.

2 banks of 4 and 2 strikers is plenty for a defensive team. But we dont play that style. Its not in our nature to purposely give the other team the ball, sit back and let them hit us before breaking away. We should definately do it more often.

Originally Posted by jem

you mean "any @#%&! can win"? or do you mean that it's criminal fergie hasn't won more european cups? we were the best team in europe for at least five years, during which time we managed to £#%&! up against lesser opposition. since we actually won the thing, it has been our attitude that has cost us every time, bar last year when we were simply awful.

This one:

Originally Posted by jem

it's £#%&!ing criminal that fergie doesn't have three to five european cups under his belt. what if... eh?

I think, given that only one manager (Paisley) has won it more than twice, that's a bit unfair.

I think United should have got to the final in 2002, when an average Bayer Leverkusen side were taken lightly and pretty much allowed to sneak past us on away goals. After that, I genuinely don't think we were good enough to win it. Perhaps in 2004, when there was a particularly weak lineup, we should have done better - but of course, we were a little unlucky to go out to Porto.

I do agree with your stance on our approach in Europe, though. I was happy for us to try things out in the group stage when there was more margin for error; I was also pretty happy with the way things went in Lille. However, Wednesday night was shocking - playing O'Shea ahead of Giggs and essentially playing it safe at home against a side like Lille was bad enough, but the fact that we stuck with it after a shite first half performance didn't bode well for the rest of the tournament.

But, like I say, I'm not impressed with any of the sides left - so we still have a pretty good chance.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

0-0 away IS a good result.

leave it out Throb. 0-0 away is shit. It mean in the home game we have to win. The opposition only need a score draw at worst!

If we draw 0-0 in Rome, we will be knocked out.

it was criminal fergie didn't have more euro cups, I didn't mean he was the criminal (although since he won, his attitude hasn't helped).

it's not his fault cantona couldn't kick the ball past a prone keeper from inside the six yard box, etc.

Originally Posted by jem

it was criminal fergie didn't have more euro cups, I didn't mean he was the criminal (although since he won, his attitude hasn't helped).

it's not his fault cantona couldn't kick the ball past a prone keeper from inside the six yard box, etc.

Well, okay, but the same principle applies. It's a bit much to be complaining about not winning 3-5 European Cups in a ten-year period.

where the onus is on us to win. then, if we need to attack away, we are always capable of scoring.

what would suck is if we drew 0-0 in rome, they score an early goal and shut up shop. we'd have to score 2 against a packed midfield and defence. the way we've been attacking recently, I wouldn't put money on it.

much as I hate liverpool and would like to belittle their last euro cup win, the reason they kept going through is because they attacked teams from the off, played like they had nothing to lose and rocked the opposition and kept them on the back foot. it wasn't that liverpool were better than the teams they played... in fact, their approach was largely conditioned by being the underdogs.... but rather that they surprised them with their intent.

just once, I'd like to see us do that again.

It'd be nice if we were dark horses and could go out and shock em with our devastating football. But we aren't, and they'll know us inside out. And obviously away goals could be crucial - that's what having the advantage is supposed to be about. But don't be surprised if Roma see us coming and play catenaccio is all I'm trying to say. They've been stung by the English too many times recently to let us pick them off with our Benfica away style lightning counter-attack.

On the subject of our European history, if the Manchester United style of play really worked so brilliantly against continental opposition then Busby's team of the 60s would have won more than one - like 1966 and 1969, for instance. So were they too defensive? I don't remember reading any such thing in all the reams of pages I've read about those sides. Did they put in great performances but just get a bit unlucky, then? No. They underestimated Belgrade, and then nearly scrambled into extra-time against Milan - with no-marks Ajax waiting in the final (Milan beat them easily to win the trophy).

United would also have done better in Porto in 77 instead of getting absolutely £#%&!in murdered 4-0. And surely Big Ron's team wouldn't have got knocked out by Wislaw (was it?) and Videoton, either.

Fergie's team wouldn't have folded at Atletico Madrid or Gothenburg, and we wouldn't have got suckered by Galatasaray and Barcelona at home, either, in the early 90s. We'd have turned Dortmund over, and wouldn't have got stung by Madrid on the break for half a dozen goals in 4 games.

Done this argument to death. We had a lot of luck in the 99 run. We've had mostly bad luck ever since (not counting last season which was dire). This season we have pretty effortlessly and uninspiringly made it to the quarters. It'd be nice to see some goals.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

It'd be nice if we were dark horses and could go out and shock em with our devastating football. But we aren't, and they'll know us inside out. And obviously away goals could be crucial - that's what having the advantage is supposed to be about. But don't be surprised if Roma see us coming and play catenaccio is all I'm trying to say. They've been stung by the English too many times recently to let us pick them off with our Benfica away style lightning counter-attack.

On the subject of our European history, if the Manchester United style of play really worked so brilliantly against continental opposition then Busby's team of the 60s would have won more than one - like 1966 and 1969, for instance. So were they too defensive? I don't remember reading any such thing in all the reams of pages I've read about those sides. Did they put in great performances but just get a bit unlucky, then? No. They underestimated Belgrade, and then nearly scrambled into extra-time against Milan - with no-marks Ajax waiting in the final (Milan beat them easily to win the trophy).

United would also have done better in Porto in 77 instead of getting absolutely £#%&!in murdered 4-0. And surely Big Ron's team wouldn't have got knocked out by Wislaw (was it?) and Videoton, either.

Fergie's team wouldn't have folded at Atletico Madrid or Gothenburg, and we wouldn't have got suckered by Galatasaray and Barcelona at home, either, in the early 90s. We'd have turned Dortmund over, and wouldn't have got stung by Madrid on the break for half a dozen goals in 4 games.

Done this argument to death. We had a lot of luck in the 99 run. We've had mostly bad luck ever since (not counting last season which was dire). This season we have pretty effortlessly and uninspiringly made it to the quarters. It'd be nice to see some goals.

we are as predictable as a jam doughnut. make of that what you will. nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

we are as predictable as a jam doughnut. make of that what you will. nft.

Not all jam doughnuts squeeze the same way.

Fergie has lost his bottle since the Leverkeusen debacle. I'm sure he knows we should have won it that season and since then has stuck with this bizarre defence stance aided by his incompetent sidekick Carlos.

If we throw everything we have at this CL attempt we can win it, if we play a tactical and defensive way we will not. United cannot and never have been able to.

And as an aside Good players don't suddenly turn awful.. Fergies tactics are having an terrible effect on Rooney

Originally Posted by Cheadle Chopper

Fergie has lost his bottle since the Leverkeusen debacle. I'm sure he knows we should have won it that season and since then has stuck with this bizarre defence stance aided by his incompetent sidekick Carlos.

If we throw everything we have at this CL attempt we can win it, if we play a tactical and defensive way we will not. United cannot and never have been able to.

And as an aside Good players don't suddenly turn awful.. Fergies tactics are having an terrible effect on Rooney

Good players can adapt to different tactics. Tactics would never prevent a good player from controlling a football. He's a bag of nerves. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

Good players can adapt to different tactics. Tactics would never prevent a good player from controlling a football. He's a bag of nerves. It really is that simple.

I think he is more of an instinctive player rather than an intelligent one.

If you change his natural game he struggles to adapt.

It's criminal he isn't being played where he is absolutely devestating, as a second striker off Saha. And there is only one person to blame for that....

fergie?


we were robbed in 69, incidentally.


all those muggings of which you speak are fergie's crutch when it comes talking about naivety. it is possible to defend competently but show some attacking intent. he seems happy to try to mug other teams. it's no way to play football (and, in our case, it's not even a horribly effective... we're shit at it). we are talking about a fergie who was playing for a draw when when we were losing against milan.

I'm weary now.

We can beat Roma with exactly the tactics we have been using, ands we can beat them well.

We are not European masters and never have been - in our history.

Wayne Rooney has had plenty of chances to score in Europe since his debut.

He has also had plenty of situations that should have led to a goal-scoring chances.

Players win matches, not tactics.

Finally, I'll leave you with this: was the chance missed by Ronaldo in Lille much different to the one missed by Beckham in Dortmund?

Originally Posted by Cheadle Chopper

Fergie has lost his bottle since the Leverkeusen debacle. I'm sure he knows we should have won it that season and since then has stuck with this bizarre defence stance aided by his incompetent sidekick Carlos.

If we throw everything we have at this CL attempt we can win it, if we play a tactical and defensive way we will not. United cannot and never have been able to.

And as an aside Good players don't suddenly turn awful.. Fergies tactics are having an terrible effect on Rooney

whoa, why is everyone saying tactics can ruin a player? thats stupid, rooney has been poor and anonymous at times in the middle. playing somewhere else doesn't suddenly mean he cant control, dribble, pass or whatever.

in his first couple of seasons he was all over the pitch carrying us and scoring and creating fear and all sorts. where is that energy and desire now?