Manchester United vs. Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Count Orduck said:
That was a dreadful match. Sadly, with Moyes' record against the big teams, that's probably how we're going to end up playing against them more often than not. Lacklustre.

That said, the crowd were shockingly awful. Moyes' first home game and you could have heard a pin drop.
Click to expand...


What a load of absolute bollocks.

That wasn't Moyes fault at all. We got into the final third countless times and our final product was mostly awful. A better killer ball or finish in that final third and we'd of won this one. Overall actually some really good football again and stopped Chelsea from really creating a single real chance, even if they were mostly defensive. Not easy to break down a Mourinho team, yet with better finishing we could of taken this.

Stop chatting shit about Moyes please. His record with Everton means feck all.
 
People complaining about Mourinho playing for the draw are kind of missing the point - that sort of compact counter-attacking strategy is what we often played away from home under Ferguson. Chelsea did exactly what they needed to and got the result they wanted. Going to Old Trafford and getting a point? Excellent for them.

We, on the other hand, had no excuse. Flat performance, flat crowd, flat tactics. We looked utterly bereft of ideas and invention. Frankly, I think we were playing for the draw, too. At home.
 
Chelsea set the tone for the game playing with no strikers, it was down to us to create some proper chances. Let's not forget we should have had a penalty though.

Count Orduck said:
People complaining about Mourinho playing for the draw are kind of missing the point - that sort of compact counter-attacking strategy is what we often played away from home under Ferguson. Chelsea did exactly what they needed to and got the result they wanted. Going to Old Trafford and getting a point? Excellent for them.

We, on the other hand, had no excuse. Flat performance, flat crowd, flat tactics. We looked utterly bereft of ideas and invention. Frankly, I think we were playing for the draw, too. At home.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I've (hardly) ever seen substitutions by SAF quite at the same level of negativity as taking off Hazard and Schurrle (?) and putting on Mikel and Azpilicueta though. Cynically boring.
 
Revan said:
No, it isn't a that good result. We have a better team and we were playing in our pitch. We should have win this.
Click to expand...

Calm down mate. Moyes would not wanted to lose this match, so you can understand why we wasn't gun-ho.
 
I think they did a good job at nullifying or main threats in RvP and Carrick.
 
Count Orduck said:
People complaining about Mourinho playing for the draw are kind of missing the point - that sort of compact counter-attacking strategy is what we often played away from home under Ferguson. Chelsea did exactly what they needed to and got the result they wanted. Going to Old Trafford and getting a point? Excellent for them.

We, on the other hand, had no excuse. Flat performance, flat crowd, flat tactics. We looked utterly bereft of ideas and invention. Frankly, I think we were playing for the draw, too. At home.
Click to expand...


I would put a lot of it done to a typical early season flat performance. It takes us a while to get going. We created much more than Chelsea.
 
I like how the co-commentator (rightly) shrugged off the late penalty claim because the Chelsea player "didn't make himself wider", but failed to apply the exact same logic for the much clearer incident, which he didn't think was a penalty either. At least decide how you want to interpret the rule, even if it's a bit unclear according to the rulebook, you Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
 
We were well organized but lacked cutting edge in the final third, no real inventiveness or pace through the middle. Overall we looked more likely then they did though, but both teams were unimpressive.
 
Mersault said:
I do agree, he provided pace on the right and Young offered cluelessness

I'd say the same about subbing Welbeck.

Kagawa should have been the first to come on. Other than that, I thought DM did well in his first game at OT
Click to expand...


Young wasn't that bad actually, provided a few good crosses, I'd rather introduced Young for Welbeck around the same time Giggsy came on for Welbeck.
 
Summit said:
Calm down mate. Moyes would not wanted to lose this match, so you can understand why we wasn't gun-ho.
Click to expand...

I am calm, I just felt that we should have tried to win the match. We didn't, we were happy to get a point, which I think was a mistake cause we were a better team.
 
Good result overall. Always a difficult match against Chelsea. Except today, Chelsea played at 50% maybe? They where totally confortable letting us do the thinking (not much thinking really).

Worried about our lack of hunger, playing at our stadium... Moyes too scared to loose his first game at OT. I hope is just that... i can understand. Next time go for the win Moyes!
 
This game shows just how important Nani is. His delivery and ability to beat players with skill or pace is what decides these games.

Also, we need the twins as fullbacks please.
 
Typical Moyes team: organised, hard-working, difficult to beat, more perspiration than inspiration.
 
Mersault said:
I do agree, he provided pace on the right and Young offered cluelessness

I'd say the same about subbing Welbeck.

Kagawa should have been the first to come on. Other than that, I thought DM did well in his first game at OT
Click to expand...

This post just reeks of someone who'd made their mind up as soon as Young came on the field. Give him a bloody chance.
 
Count Orduck said:
People complaining about Mourinho playing for the draw are kind of missing the point - that sort of compact counter-attacking strategy is what we often played away from home under Ferguson. Chelsea did exactly what they needed to and got the result they wanted. Going to Old Trafford and getting a point? Excellent for them.

We, on the other hand, had no excuse. Flat performance, flat crowd, flat tactics. We looked utterly bereft of ideas and invention. Frankly, I think we were playing for the draw, too. At home.
Click to expand...


Of course it's a good result for them, it's just we rinsed them in the first half and should have beat them and Jose with his smug-ugly face was talking up his coming to OT to attack. Mind games, fair enough, but let the media start talking about how boring his team is. Wow, they had a good little spell against Hull, have a fecking medal
 
Terry was very good in fairness, but didn't have that much to do. Rooney was a lot more lively and put in a great performance. Just needed a goal or an assist really, shame.
 
Moyes' tactics were actually spot on.

Our wingers and fullbacks let us down today with poor link up and delivery all game.

Anyone who thinks Moyes lost the tactical battle is wrong.
 
RedDevilCanuck said:
This game shows just how important Nani is. His delivery and ability to beat players with skill or pace is what decides these games.

Also, we need the twins as fullbacks please.
Click to expand...

On a good day. On a bad day, Nani is just as frustrating as Valencia was last year, and has a terrible final ball. But I wouldn't mind having him in that kind of game to be honest.
 
Revan said:
Both managers wanted a draw tonight.
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure how much more Moyes could have done, we started with 3 strikers on the pitch, brought on 2 wingers. Chelsea started with no strikers and brought on the most defensive midfielder in the world and a right back.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Terry was very good in fairness, but didn't have that much to do. Rooney was a lot more lively and put in a great performance. Just needed a goal or an assist really, shame.
Click to expand...

Makes life a lot easier for a center half when the rest of your team is standing five feet in front of you covering pretty much everything. I don't really know what Terry did more compared to the other eight Chelsea defenders to deserve the MOTM really.
 
RedDevilCanuck said:
This game shows just how important Nani is. His delivery and ability to beat players with skill or pace is what decides these games.

Also, we need the twins as fullbacks please.
Click to expand...

I like Nani but to say how important he is after we waltzed to the title last year almost without him seems a bit daft.
 
Today just shows how dependent on his fullback Valencia is against a quality fullback. He usually looks a much better player with a good attacker overlapping.
 
We've rarely been this comfortable against Chelsea also, part of it is down to how Mourinho set up (idiotic team selection and tactics), but there was also great preparation on our side with quick intelligent pressing and a lot of closing down of spaces. We were just uninspiring going forwards, it happens, it's a shame we couldn't conjure up just a little bit of magic against Chelsea cos it'd have been a great win, deserved in my opinion, and they've rarely seemed so ripe for the taking.
 
walsh said:
Not entirely sure how much more Moyes could have done, we started with 3 strikers on the pitch, brought on 2 wingers. Chelsea started with no strikers and brought on the most defensive midfielder in the world and a right back.
Click to expand...
Only surprised Mourinho didn't try to bring on a second keeper instead of Torres.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.