Torres' sending off reduced Chelsea to 9 men. Ivanovic had seen red before then and we still struggled to break them down.Really? Remember when Torres got sent off against us?
Torres' sending off reduced Chelsea to 9 men. Ivanovic had seen red before then and we still struggled to break them down.Really? Remember when Torres got sent off against us?
I don't know what game you were watching. We'll leave that at that.That´s not how I remember our performance against 9 men Chelsea.
I´ll tell you this, we tried to hold on twice against this weak tiki takaing with 11 men when Barca were at their peak, we didn´t do all that well.
Of course it would change, it would get even more difficult and maybe help the siege mentality.Because nothing would have changed for a lesser side. They would have gone into the game with their fingers crossed and praying to their favorite Gods.
There wouldn't be enough data to come to any sort of meaningful conclusion.Again, I'd like to see the stats, but I'm guessing Barca are no less effective against ten men than most top sides, and probably more effective.
They're the better team because they have the better players. Simple really. There's a reason they were favourites to beat us, even after we got a good result in Madrid.We outplayed them over 2 legs (with XI men) and they have a better team than us? We had the best of the chances in both legs and never lost control of the games besides the 10 minutes after the ridiculous red. How are they better than us?
Yep and relied on an offside goal to win. I have seen several instances of opponents going down to ten against us and we still look like we are playing against 11.Torres' sending off reduced Chelsea to 9 men. Ivanovic had seen red before then and we still struggled to break them down.
So because we didn't defend as well as Italy did in 2000 (Italy, of all countries) we bottled it?Totally. True story and the reason I remember the Italian Dutch game in 2000, but I bet 50 quid it would end 0-0 and the Italians would win on pens. Made the bet as soon as the Italian was sent off. The Dutch had 3/4 of the game to score one goal. Real took 3 minutes to score 2. Not inevitable by any means.
Most lesser sides tend to lose when down to 10 men. Look how we beat Liverpool at AnfieldOf course it would change, it would get even more difficult and maybe help the siege mentality.
Barca have been a great side since 09, they must have played a fair few games against 10 men in that time, especially with fecking Busquets in the side. Surely enough minutes to be statistically significant.I'm guessing that they'd be less effective.
Stats are useless here, how many matches per team are played against 10 men per season? That's before you factor in the quality of the 11 men.
Pretty sure it's purely asinine posts that get persecuted not constructive criticism.This, basically. I think the idea that criticising any element of United on here is not only forbidden but actively persecuted is really harmful to discussion. In fact so many posters here laugh at RAWK for exactly the same thing that it's not only harmfu but downright hypocritical.
I have said over and over we didn't bottle it. But that's the lunacy of it, no grey area.So because we didn't defend as well as Italy did in 2000 (Italy, of all countries) we bottled it?
That's the lunacy of it all, no grey ground. We could have done better but in no way does that mean we bottled it. It was a disgrace to let the game get to that point.
You claim both did well yet they both still lost.Yep and relied on an offside goal to win. I have seen several instances of opponents going down to ten against us and we still look like we are playing against 11.
Liverpool did quite well this season with ten against us as well.
OK, I just think we reacted poorly. If you think it was inevitability then we just disagree. I knew it would be hard when the red was given but I didn't lose hope until they scored. Maybe the players took your stand on it.Most lesser sides tend to lose when down to 10 men. Look how we beat Liverpool at Anfield
You claim both did well yet they both still lost.
We still did well towards the end against Madrid, we still lost.
Nobody is denying that. It was an awful red card and we should feel a massive injustice, however, it is not really criminal to say that we could have done a better job when we went down and protected our 1-0 lead, because we absolutely could have!So because we didn't defend as well as Italy did in 2000 (Italy, of all countries) we bottled it?
That's the lunacy of it all, no grey ground. We could have done better but in no way does that mean we bottled it. It was a disgrace to let the game get to that point.
It's also perfectly possible that Ronaldo can wallop one in from 40 yards, just so difficult. Lack of composure is the only thing I can fault the team on and as others have said it was for a 10 min period. I think there was one point where Cleverley got the ball and got out of trouble only to turn back into it. That's inexperience but you felt there was enough experience out there to guide us. I can't fault anyone really but you can always do certain things better.Well.. no doubt the players were stunned from the unexpected sending off, but perhaps a tad harsh, i thought SAF should have reacted better by bringing on Evans, tighten up the defence, Rooney for RVP to play deeper. It's not really impossible to have played out for a clean sheet, like England vs Italy for 120mins.
Aaaaaand nice work proving my point. Why don't you go back to one of the 8 'proud of the lads' threads and circle jerk with them instead of coming into this one and discussing some actual issues?Pretty sure it's purely asinine posts that get persecuted not constructive criticism.
'Doing well' needing two goals in 20 minutes against 11 men killing time is a bit Brendan Rogers of you.We still did well towards the end against Madrid, we still lost.
"Doing well" in the same way Liverpool and Chelsea "did well" against us. Fact of the matter is all teams with 10 men in that incident still lost."Doing well" needing two goals in 20 minutes against 11 men killing time is a bit Brendan Rogers of you.
I have actually apologised for using the word bottled and said it was over the top...So because we didn't defend as well as Italy did in 2000 (Italy, of all countries) we bottled it?
That's the lunacy of it all, no grey ground. We could have done better but in no way does that mean we bottled it. It was a disgrace to let the game get to that point.
I understand too why we we didn't, I think everyone does. It's just the inevitability where I disagree."Doing well" in the same way Liverpool and Chelsea "did well" against us. Fact of the matter is all teams with 10 men in that incident still lost.
I think we could have done better but I understand completely why we did not. This thread is similar to the poster who criticised De Gea for Modric's goal.
Barca deals with teams sitting back against them since 2008 (we even did it against them when they were in their period of turmoil), and they have more often than not passed the challenge during their peak period, when even real madrid got humiliated playing that way.I don't know what game you were watching. We'll leave that at that.
We didn't set up defensively against Barcelona in both finals, a spastic decision like I've called them so many times. Chelsea and Inter sat very deep denying Barcelona space between and behind the full backs, and they were reduced to stroking the ball around the half line in both matches. What your second point has to do with this discussion, lord knows.
I still think Rooney and Anderson coming on for RVP and Giggs respectively would have got us ticking. Firstly, making subs gives our defenders a breather for few moments and secondly, Rooney and Anderson can hassle Madrid's players out of possession. There's no way fresh legs wouldn't have given us a respite than sticking with leggy players.we defended well morons , it took a stunner to equalize
wtf is wrong with people
Dunno though, we could easily have had four in that time. They were much less comfortable than they expected to be.'Doing well' needing two goals in 20 minutes against 11 men killing time is a bit Brendan Rogers of you.
It's not completely inevitable but you do need a lot of luck particularly against a team with a midfield of Khedira, Alonso (no longer being man marked), Ozil and Modric.I understand too why we we didn't, I think everyone does. It's just the inevitability where I disagree.
We were great, but the fact is they had a 2 goal cushion. And while I agree one goal would have made a massive difference, a 2 goal cusion does things to a team.Dunno though, we could easily have had four in that time. They were much less comfortable than they expected to be.
I thought it was an odd decision to sit back at 1-2 actually, they were raping us. Very Mourinho though. But if we'd have scored one of those chances that fell to Vidic, Carrick (twice) and Wayne, I'd have backed us to win it, Madrid were rattled and I think Mourinho knew it from what he said afterwards.
Well it is much more closer to an exit than in Milan for my money even when we were leading 2-1. Turin was a special night but I doubt we would have held on against Juve with 10 men.But 10 men, 1 up at home with 30 mins left for me is not as near an exit as we were in Milan or Turn in 99.
You do need luck, but we ruled all that out by our reaction in my opinion. An immediate and clear response was not there, and that is a bit disappointing.It's not completely inevitable but you do need a lot of luck particularly against a team with a midfield of Khedira, Alonso (no longer being man marked), Ozil and Modric.
Chelsea and Inter conceded in those matches they "held on in" (2 and 1 respectively).Barca deals with teams sitting back against them since 2008 (we even did it against them when they were in their period of turmoil), and they have more often than not passed the challenge during their peak period, when even real madrid got humiliated playing that way.
Absolutely ridiculous to play their footballing style down when it was so devastating ad successful, talk about short memories.
My second point is simple: this tiki taka team you would scoff at now, was being heralded by most as possibily one of the best teams ever... they looked unbeatable at times and the times they lost, it took a massive amount of luck and a herculian effort of defending.
so I daresay it was at least as hard to hold on against them for 70 minutes at their ground than for us to hold on for 35 mins at our ground vs real.
We weren't alright, two minutes earlier Rafael used his hand to clear the ball off the line. A goal was inevitable, it just turned out to be a spectacular one.Modric's goal killed us, we were alright till then... I think there was always going to be an initial Real storm. There was bound to be... I doubt you could stop a side like Real really going for it as soon as the opposition go down a man... we just needed to weather that initial storm and then Madrid probably would have lost that impotus and we could have got another foot-hold in the game.
But you can't really account for Modric blasting one in from distance. After that went in, I think our players, wrongly, but understandably dropped off a bit, and Real hit the killer blow.
What would we have changed though. We were 1-0 up at that point and our defenders were playing good. Can't see why we should have been making changes at that point. Welbeck shifts over to nani's spot and we lose the man behind the striker with RVP playing by himself. SAF did nothing wrong. Once we were behind he made changes that were required as we needed a goalHe should have changed it straight after Nani was sent off. Then, even after Madrid equalized and they were all over us, he didn't change it either.
I don't think we bottled it. I think we were brilliant. But changes should have been made earlier in my opinion.
Are we not allowed to be proud of the effort our players put in tonight?Aaaaaand nice work proving my point. Why don't you go back to one of the 8 'proud of the lads' threads and circle jerk with them instead of coming into this one and discussing some actual issues?