We weren't THAT good

Pogue Mahone · 9th November 2009, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Adebesi

He's an Arsenal fan that spends a lot of his time floating around a United messageboard. You have to be fairly suspicious of that. I imagine our regulars who go baiting on RAWK are less inclined to go on there when they have been on great form. (Cast your mind back, that has happened in days of olde.)

Was the internet invented then?

Simon Adebesi · 9th November 2009, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Was the internet invented then?

Good point.

RonaldoVII · 9th November 2009, 12:32

Bollocks. We didn't really test Cech but Van der Sar had nothing to do also. We would have tested Cech had decisions gone the correct way; Rooney 1v1 and Rooney from 12 yards. We'd have scored at least one of those.

gaffs · 9th November 2009, 12:34

A draw would have been a fair result.

Inigo Montoya · 9th November 2009, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonaldoVII

Bollocks. We didn't really test Cech but Van der Sar had nothing to do also. We would have tested Cech had decisions gone the correct way; Rooney 1v1 and Rooney from 12 yards. We'd have scored at least one of those.

Thought he made one excellent save from Anelka myself. He needed all his 6ft 7 or whatever to tip that one round.

Cling Bak · 9th November 2009, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

All this talk about us being way better is rubbish. We were great yesterday and played much better than Chelsea but we hardly deserved a win. A draw would've been a fair result.

We probably weren't 'great' then, as you describe.

But we weren't that good either, you're right.

Striker10 · 9th November 2009, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cesc's_mullet

with the relevance being?

just saying

Nick 0208 Ldn · 9th November 2009, 13:00

If we'd sneaked a point(s) playing the same old way we have done all season we would have learned nothing for which we'll benefit later on in the season.

It was a significant improvement and the first time we'd employed that system since last season, if we'd been more in the groove a few things that didn't come off, could well have done.

Have a downer on the ultiamte result by all means but the performance was sound.

gh78 · 9th November 2009, 14:26

We weren't that good but we were better than chelsea and played some attacking football which is unusual for that fixture.
We also weren't that bad against Liverpool.

Interval Level · 9th November 2009, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cling Bak

We probably weren't 'great' then, as you describe.

But we weren't that good either, you're right.

I'm sorry but I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Addis

No, you're actually wrong.

It's a good thing no one listens to you.

pathfinder · 9th November 2009, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

This weekend, it will be three months since Chelsea last conceded a goal at Stamford Bridge, in all competitions. That's 8 consecutive home games without conceding a single goal.

We went into this game without our first-choice central defensive pairing, against a team that had Drogba and Anelka in the form of their lives. I don't understand why anyone would think we could have set up in way that would do anything other than try to provide as much protection to our back four as possible.

This would inevitably make us slightly less likely to create goals at the other end, which won't have been helped by the fact we were forced to leave our most creative player this season back in Manchester.

All in all, it's no great surprise that goal-scoring opportunities for United were limited but it was a great surprise that Chelsea were even more starved of chances, in a game they were supposed to dominate.

This is why it was a very good performance from United, who deserved at least a draw and on another day - with another referee - could have nicked a win that nobody would begrudge us, on the balance of play.

Personally, I'm looking forward to hearing the opinions of our resident gooners after they go into a fixture as tough as this one without either Vermaelen and Gallas (or Van Persie). There will most definitely be a lot more goals to enjoy, that's for sure - most of them past Arsenal's hapless keeper.

Pogue, you have a real knack of pissing me off. However, the above statement is bang on. And pretty much word for word what I was thinking. Which really pisses me off !

Pogue Mahone · 9th November 2009, 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pathfinder

Pogue, you have a real knack of pissing me off. However, the above statement is bang on. And pretty much word for word what I was thinking. Which really pisses me off !

Feck off!

Cling Bak · 9th November 2009, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

I'm sorry but I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

The thread title says: We weren't THAT good.

Your post says: We played great.

It makes absolutely no sense.

misterredmist · 9th November 2009, 16:11

It is fair to say that we performed well - certainly better in possession than I expected us to be at the Bridge, but we were a bit toothless in the last part of our attacks, the parts that matter, and did'nt exactly dirty Cech's gloves.

On another day, we could have got a pen when Terry dragged Valencia down, but Terry "disguised" it well...... both defences played well to be fair..... I was hoping a stunner ( from us...) would decide a game of this magnitude, but, no, it had to be a controversial affair did'nt it ?

A little bit like at Anfield, we looked good approaching the area, then......nothing...... and you always have to expect you'll concede at
these places....so we are just lacking that goal threat and execution at
the front end at the moment to add to some very promising and thorough approach play....

sure we'll improve !

Interval Level · 9th November 2009, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cling Bak

The thread title says: We weren't THAT good.

Your post says: We played great.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Okay. But you got the jist of it. As did many people who replied. What I meant was that weren't great in all aspects. The final third was lacking a bit.

But sorry for the contradiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterredmist

It is fair to say that we performed well - certainly better in possession than I expected us to be at the Bridge, but we were a bit toothless in the last part of our attacks, the parts that matter, and did'nt exactly dirty Cech's gloves.

On another day, we could have got a pen when Terry dragged Valencia down, but Terry "disguised" it well...... both defences played well to be fair..... I was hoping a stunner ( from us...) would decide a game of this magnitude, but, no, it had to be a controversial affair did'nt it ?

A little bit like at Anfield, we looked good approaching the area, then......nothing...... and you always have to expect you'll concede at
these places....so we are just lacking that goal threat and execution at
the front end at the moment to add to some very promising and thorough approach play....

sure we'll improve !

Agree with that. good post. I was also expecting Anderson or Carrick to score one on 80+ minutes. Sadly...

Garethw · 9th November 2009, 18:28

I thought we were bloody great yesterday.

To out play and out muscle Chelsea in midfield is something i just didn't expect.

We were very unlucky to lose. If we play like that every game until the end of the season we will win the fucking lot (Not going to happen though unfortunately).

pathfinder · 10th November 2009, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Feck off!

I feel a true romance emerging

CnutOfAllCnuts · 10th November 2009, 12:48

I thought we played well, and Chelsea scored the only way I could see them scoring; from a set-piece.

That was due to especially Evans and Brown, and Fletcher, Carrick and Anderson.

We were unlucky with Rooney's offside and Valencia's penalty claim. Think Giggs' should have done better a couple of times, and I think we should have put Owen on before they scored, when we were at top.

pathfinder · 10th November 2009, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

I thought we played well, and Chelsea scored the only way I could see them scoring; from a set-piece.

That was due to especially Evans and Brown, and Fletcher, Carrick and Anderson.

We were unlucky with Rooney's offside and Valencia's penalty claim. Think Giggs' should have done better a couple of times, and I think we should have put Owen on before they scored, when we were at top.

Nope.. I was happy with the way things were going. United were on top and I felt we may even nick a goal that would have been deserved. Had Unitedbought on Owen, and United lost in the same way.. Fergie would have been slated.

Interval Level · 10th November 2009, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

I thought we played well, and Chelsea scored the only way I could see them scoring; from a set-piece.

That was due to especially Evans and Brown, and Fletcher, Carrick and Anderson.

We were unlucky with Rooney's offside and Valencia's penalty claim. Think Giggs' should have done better a couple of times, and I think we should have put Owen on before they scored, when we were at top.

Yes, but these things happen in football. We had alot of half chances which were not converted due to either a bad decision by the player or a rubbish shot. That decisive edge was lacking. We obviously did very well in the midfield and in defence.

kouroux · 10th November 2009, 14:56

That match reminded of old Italian derbies when everything was boring and just about defending and fighting for the ball.Neither team was good

Kelvin · 10th November 2009, 15:10

we still look toothless upfront even though we play better than chelsea, the loss of Ronaldo is becoming more and more evident whether people like it or not sadly....

Pogue Mahone · 10th November 2009, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by kouroux

That match reminded of old Italian derbies when everything was boring and just about defending and fighting for the ball.Neither team was good

Maybe but the "old Italian derbies" used to involve at least one of the best sides in Europe at the time.

Football isn't always entertaining, two good sides can cancel each other out and really great sides are just as good at stopping the opposition from scoring goals as they are at looking to score themselves. This is something that Arsene Wenger (and most of the new breed of Arsenal fans) seems to struggle to grasp.

kouroux · 10th November 2009, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Maybe but the "old Italian derbies" used to involve at least one of the best sides in Europe at the time.

Football isn't always entertaining, two good sides can cancel each other out and really great sides are just as good at stopping the opposition from scoring goals as they are at looking to score themselves. This is something that Arsene Wenger (and most of the new breed of Arsenal fans) seems to struggle to grasp.

I didn't mean that the match had to be entertaining, I never expected it to be.

krazyrobus · 11th November 2009, 13:10

How would you define a good match? 19 shots, 12 on target, 3 goals. Get real this is Chelsea at the bridge how many fucking teams are going to get those kind of stats. How many will dominate posession and create the better tangible/threatening chances.

Best Cm in the world Essien - Nullified
Best goal scoring midfider in the world lampard - Nullified
one of the best holding front stirkers and certified human batering ram - Nullified

Yes we could have improved on how the play up front Valencia lacks the guile of a big team winger and too mechanical, central midfielders don't pose huge goal threat, but i'm much happier with this performance than the cagey effort at Pool where we were not even in it.

Simon Adebesi · 11th November 2009, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by krazyrobus

How would you define a good match? 19 shots, 12 on target, 3 goals. Get real this is Chelsea at the bridge how many fucking teams are going to get those kind of stats. How many will dominate posession and create the better tangible/threatening chances.

Best Cm in the world Essien - Nullified
Best goal scoring midfider in the world lampard - Nullified
one of the best holding front stirkers and certified human batering ram - Nullified

Yes we could have improved on how the play up front Valencia lacks the guile of a big team winger and too mechanical, central midfielders don't pose huge goal threat, but i'm much happier with this performance than the cagey effort at Pool where we were not even in it.

Very fair comments. I think most of us are happier with this performance that the Liverpool one. You'd have to be a bit special not to be.

It was a very strong defensive display for the reasons you cite.

The one thing I would say comes in response to your comment: "Get real this is Chelsea at the bridge how many fucking teams are going to get those kind of stats." Well, not many, perhaps. But we are Manchester United. Call me/us spoilt but we have come to expect that we should be able to achieve what few other teams can. 19 shots, 12 on target, 3 goals is probably asking too much even for a team that wants to be thought of us up there with the best in the world, but a few more chances than we managed would be nice.

You also have to take the game in the context of our general record against top 4 clubs of late, especially away. It aint good. No win at Chelsea since 2002 is it? And on the back of a loss to Liverpool very recently.... we had plenty of reasons over and above the usual to hope we could exorcise some demons and the fact we failed to do that is obviously a little tough to take.

krazyrobus · 11th November 2009, 13:37

I guess you are spoilt. We did achieve what few other teams can, we matched Chelsea at the Bridge. Who has gone to the Bridge lately and comprehensively beaten them in the last 5 years?

Barcelona 06/07 with Messi and Ronaldinho in his pomp is the only game that springs to mind. So to go there and get a draw would have been a laudible result for me.

Simon Adebesi · 11th November 2009, 14:04

Well in a sense any of us who have designs on winning the league are a bit spoilt.

krazyrobus · 12th November 2009, 12:40

You don't need to win at Chelsea to win the league, we haven't won there in fuck knows and won it 3 years on the trot.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

We weren't THAT good

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

9th November 2009, 12:32	#43 (permalink)
RonaldoVII First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: E236:24:101 PSN:FrozenInHell BetfairPromo: UTFAKVVTJ Posts: 12,090	Bollocks. We didn't really test Cech but Van der Sar had nothing to do also. We would have tested Cech had decisions gone the correct way; Rooney 1v1 and Rooney from 12 yards. We'd have scored at least one of those.

9th November 2009, 12:34	#44 (permalink)
gaffs First Team Sub Join Date: May 2007 Location: Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11 Posts: 9,994	A draw would have been a fair result.

9th November 2009, 13:00	#48 (permalink)
Nick 0208 Ldn News 24 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: In the spirit of Jane Lane. Posts: 12,238	If we'd sneaked a point(s) playing the same old way we have done all season we would have learned nothing for which we'll benefit later on in the season. It was a significant improvement and the first time we'd employed that system since last season, if we'd been more in the groove a few things that didn't come off, could well have done. Have a downer on the ultiamte result by all means but the performance was sound.

9th November 2009, 14:26	#49 (permalink)
gh78 Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,120	We weren't that good but we were better than chelsea and played some attacking football which is unusual for that fixture. We also weren't that bad against Liverpool.

9th November 2009, 16:11	#54 (permalink)
misterredmist Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baguley Posts: 1,689	It is fair to say that we performed well - certainly better in possession than I expected us to be at the Bridge, but we were a bit toothless in the last part of our attacks, the parts that matter, and did'nt exactly dirty Cech's gloves. On another day, we could have got a pen when Terry dragged Valencia down, but Terry "disguised" it well...... both defences played well to be fair..... I was hoping a stunner ( from us...) would decide a game of this magnitude, but, no, it had to be a controversial affair did'nt it ? A little bit like at Anfield, we looked good approaching the area, then......nothing...... and you always have to expect you'll concede at these places....so we are just lacking that goal threat and execution at the front end at the moment to add to some very promising and thorough approach play.... sure we'll improve !

9th November 2009, 18:28	#56 (permalink)
Garethw Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England; The home of James Bond, Fish and chips and Chavs! Posts: 4,826	I thought we were bloody great yesterday. To out play and out muscle Chelsea in midfield is something i just didn't expect. We were very unlucky to lose. If we play like that every game until the end of the season we will win the fucking lot (Not going to happen though unfortunately).

10th November 2009, 12:48	#58 (permalink)
CnutOfAllCnuts Bald Boring Cnut Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,184	I thought we played well, and Chelsea scored the only way I could see them scoring; from a set-piece. That was due to especially Evans and Brown, and Fletcher, Carrick and Anderson. We were unlucky with Rooney's offside and Valencia's penalty claim. Think Giggs' should have done better a couple of times, and I think we should have put Owen on before they scored, when we were at top.

10th November 2009, 14:56	#61 (permalink)
kouroux First Team Regular Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Djibouti (La terre des braves) Posts: 25,549	That match reminded of old Italian derbies when everything was boring and just about defending and fighting for the ball.Neither team was good

10th November 2009, 15:10	#62 (permalink)
Kelvin Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 21,510	we still look toothless upfront even though we play better than chelsea, the loss of Ronaldo is becoming more and more evident whether people like it or not sadly....

11th November 2009, 13:10	#65 (permalink)
krazyrobus Reserve Team Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,859	How would you define a good match? 19 shots, 12 on target, 3 goals. Get real this is Chelsea at the bridge how many fucking teams are going to get those kind of stats. How many will dominate posession and create the better tangible/threatening chances. Best Cm in the world Essien - Nullified Best goal scoring midfider in the world lampard - Nullified one of the best holding front stirkers and certified human batering ram - Nullified Yes we could have improved on how the play up front Valencia lacks the guile of a big team winger and too mechanical, central midfielders don't pose huge goal threat, but i'm much happier with this performance than the cagey effort at Pool where we were not even in it.

11th November 2009, 13:37	#67 (permalink)
krazyrobus Reserve Team Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,859	I guess you are spoilt. We did achieve what few other teams can, we matched Chelsea at the Bridge. Who has gone to the Bridge lately and comprehensively beaten them in the last 5 years? Barcelona 06/07 with Messi and Ronaldinho in his pomp is the only game that springs to mind. So to go there and get a draw would have been a laudible result for me.

11th November 2009, 14:04	#68 (permalink)
Simon Adebesi First Team Sub Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth. Posts: 6,061	Well in a sense any of us who have designs on winning the league are a bit spoilt.

12th November 2009, 12:40	#69 (permalink)
krazyrobus Reserve Team Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,859	You don't need to win at Chelsea to win the league, we haven't won there in fuck knows and won it 3 years on the trot.