We could have gone 3-0 in the first half if Tevez wasn't that wasteful (and Carrick too). They were better in the second half and extras hitting the bar, post and VDS made a terrific safe but on the other side Giggs missed an open goal (well, he managed to hit Terry in his head), so I think it was very even.
The Unpopular Opinion thread. Post yours here.
- Thread starter ShakeUnBake
- Start date
- Status
I just had the feeling that we were never going to lose that final (or really didn't believe that we would lose).
Didn't really explain it clearly above.
Plus their goal was the typical jammy Chelsea crap at the time, half our defence slips at the wrong time and Lampard turns up in the right place as usual.
Cant believe people want to take the 2011 CL final loss as a mistake, Barcelona were judt by far the best team in the world and probably the best ever, there is nothing Fergie could have done with that set of players to stop them, nothing would have helped.
You're sort of right.
But it was extreme bravery/foolhardiness to go into that game with a 2 man midfield of Carrick and Giggs, with Hernandez as good as a spectator
There's a great picture somewhere of Cesc offering his lineup advice before the game on a white board, and he's dropped Hernandez to play an extra body in the midfield. Fergie got that one wrong, with many people screaming at him. That 4-4-1-1 with Rooney as a 10 and Giggs in a 2 man midfield was very effective against a lot of teams, but was never going to trouble that Barca side. Fergie didn't want to ruin the CL final with anti-football, but we should have.
Nah, Fergie didn't want to contain, he wanted to give it a go hence below:
To MartialsBeard, I'm pretty sure Fergie has said to the effect that he was a bit ashamed or uncomfortable with the ultra defensive display against Barca in 2008, so he didn't want to revert to that for the 2011 final.
Fergie takes blame for that game but you taketh the bad with the good and he more than made up for that.
For the years around 2008 against Chelsea we always used to start really well against them and then they'd always get the upper hand.
Dependant on how good our team was at the time defined how long the period we were on top against them for but usually the first 20-30 minutes we'd be outplaying them and then they'd start to apply the pressure and the second half was always us playing on the counter.
The extra time in the 2008 final exacerbated that I think. We had the first half and then I think they were the better team for the rest of the game. I'd have to watch it again in full to be sure though. We definitely used to settle in, rely on the defence and hit quickly on the counter which added to it though.
Dependant on how good our team was at the time defined how long the period we were on top against them for but usually the first 20-30 minutes we'd be outplaying them and then they'd start to apply the pressure and the second half was always us playing on the counter.
The extra time in the 2008 final exacerbated that I think. We had the first half and then I think they were the better team for the rest of the game. I'd have to watch it again in full to be sure though. We definitely used to settle in, rely on the defence and hit quickly on the counter which added to it though.
erg
Ferguson says in his book that he wanted to take Barcelona on and beat them properly. Problem is that was never likely to happen based on the personnel both sides had at the time so we should have gone for the old low block and break and i believe we would have then won one of the two games
United have performed as well as Chelsea this year and based on balance of play in our 20 games so far we should be up at the top battling for 1st place with them not stuck scrapping for CL
2008 was probably the most evenly matched Champions League final I can ever remember. In the majority of CL finals recently there is usually one team that is (sometimes clearly) better than the other, but there really wasn't anything to split United and Chelsea across 120 minutes in Moscow.
I don't believe it for a single minute. I know that he said that on his book, but from Fergie's history, he never had a problem on going full pragmatic on big matches. When we won UCL, we played with a midfield 3. Putting an extra midfielder in place of Hernandez wouldn't have ruin UCL final, and I don't think that Fergie would have given a shit about it if that would have won the final.
I think that he went with a midfield two for two reasons. First, we didn't have an another great midfielder there bar an old Scholes, and playing both Scholes and Giggs in the midfield wouldn't have been a good idea considering that their legs (especially Scholes') were gone. He thought that Rooney would contribute more from the middle, but he definitely failed on neutralizing Busquets. Second, the 4-2-3-1 had served us well that season, destroying Chelsea both in the league and UCL, and annihilating a Schalke who had just destroyed the previous years Champions. You don't fix what is not broken.
Saying that, going with that weak midfield was always going to end that way. We lost that match vs Barca when Fergie decided to not improve our midfield in all those years. Maybe putting Jones in midfield with Carrick and Giggs might have given us a slight chance, but I find it very doubtful.
Both Madrid finals (well, the first one excluding extra times) were as even as you can get from a final.
Richard Dawkins would have done a better job managing Swansea than Bob Bradley.
Tbf it'll be a gamble either way with us changing formation on last minute notice considering we're up against barca that has played like that since day 1.
Fergie banking on hernandez to nick a few and make it a tight shut defence.
But we all know how it went
There's an obsession with Pep Guardiola on this site that'll make the media proud. I get he's City manager and all but he almost needs his own forum dedicated to him. There'll be more threads devoted to Guardiola than Mourinho on a Manchester United forum soon.
Mourinho arrived at the perfect time from his perspective as he didn't have to take the poisoned chalice appointment of directly following Fergie which even for a man of his ego would have been a tough ask.
Plus they had the juice doctor on their side aswell. The odds were always against us
.I mean Christ.
Also, the lineup that worked against Chelsea and Schalke struggled against Arsenal, and they were closer to Barca in style then those sides. There was a warning. I was posting on BigSoccer praying he'd stick an extra in the middle and give us a chance, and I'm just some random internet asshole.
Fergie underestimated Barca, thinking they were great instead of an all-time side.
Easier said than done. The alternatives were an old and past it Scholes and Anderson. Fletcher was sick, Hargreaves was a crock who had played 5 matches in the last 3 years and Anderson was Anderson. It wouldn't have changed anything by putting an extra body there (Jones or O'Shea), we still would have lost.
In this way, Fergie chose his best possible team, although it was badly mismatched against them. And lost!
The problem was leaving our midfield in that shape and we payed for him. We should have signed 2-3 midfielders from 2007 (the last time we signed one before Fellaini) to 2011.
2014 was all Real apart from a scrappy goal from Atletico. 2016 I agree with.
Nah.
Either Fletcher could have gutted it out for an hour or if not, there was Nani to play LW and Park as a CM option to harry Busquets, which any reasonable mind knew Rooney was too stupid, lazy and fat to do even then (while he was excellent going forward).
Check the dates. This is me writing, and I live in a country where we can't even qualify for real (men's) World Cup Qualifying:
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...-tactics-thread.1724317/page-16#post-23418375
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...-tactics-thread.1724317/page-15#post-23417909
If Fletcher was too iill to be effective for an hour, Nani was the option out left. He was the PFA player of the year, named it 10 days before.
It would have been scary having him tracking Dani Alves' runs, sure, but he was also a threat to go forward, and as we saw again and again with that Barca side, dribbling ability against their pressing was generally more effective than trying to pass your way out when your teammates weren't up to it anyways (and we still see when guys like Carrasco and Bale give them trouble).
This is from Zonal Marking, the day before the game, when he was an unpaid fecking blogger. Emphasis is mine:
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/05/27/barcelona-v-manchester-united-tactical-preview/
"Everyone agrees that the main decision at the start will come from Ferguson. Should he continue to use Javier Hernandez, a key part ofFerguson’s recent ‘big game’ side, or drop the Mexican in order to use another central midfielder, and go for more of a defensive system? Hernandez starting would certainly be the popular move.
The decision is perhaps more complicated than many think...Besides, Hernandez hasn’t been particularly influential in games that are likely to take the same pattern as this one – ie with the opposition dominating possession. Against Arsenal at the Emirates recently, United only had 45% of possession and Hernandez only completed four passes in open play, and there’s a suspicion that he doesn’t contribute an awful lot when he doesn’t have the ball...
The case for playing another central midfielder looks stronger when you consider that Barcelona are far more possession-orientated than they were in 2009...Of course, the fitness worries of the candidates for the potential third central midfield position come into play here. Anderson and Fletcher might only be able to last 50 minutes. But Ferguson must be tempted to accept that, play either of them for that amount of time and tell them to close down and press like mad, safe in the knowledge they won’t have to play the full game, so tiring it not a problem. Then, as Arsenal have done twice in two years, really go for it in the final 25 minutes – it was notable how much Theo Walcott’s pace troubled Barcelona at the Emirates last year, and Hernandez might have the same effect."
and he even commented first on the article, saying "Personally I wouldn’t start Hernandez…"
We might well have lost, but it would have been far closer, and I still remember how relieved I was we somehow lucked out and got to the half at 1-1 and Fergie had time to switch things up since scoreline aside we were clearly getting killed out there, and how apoplectic with rage and confusion when there were no changes at halftime.
You're right that had we signed Yaya or Khedira or whoever we should have in 2009 or 2010 it would have been an easier choice, but still, it was a fecking disaster anyone watching Barcelona and United closely that season should have seen coming.
I found that Cesc pic from before the final:
Fergie might be the greatest manager of all time, but this clown would have given us a significantly better chance of winning the game, because he had played against Rooney, watched Barcelona on television that year and saw how weak our Schalke-battering 4-4-1-1 was against a quality possession side when we lost to his Arsenal the month. Also bonus points for the Evra arrow.
Honestly I cared so much more about the club then I doubt I'll ever get over my annoyance at this completely. It's fine to lose to a better team, but to not even give yourself a chance, well feck.
Fergie might be the greatest manager of all time, but this clown would have given us a significantly better chance of winning the game, because he had played against Rooney, watched Barcelona on television that year and saw how weak our Schalke-battering 4-4-1-1 was against a quality possession side when we lost to his Arsenal the month. Also bonus points for the Evra arrow.
Honestly I cared so much more about the club then I doubt I'll ever get over my annoyance at this completely. It's fine to lose to a better team, but to not even give yourself a chance, well feck.
@NoPace
Thanks for the posts! I remember back then being concerned on starting with a midfield two, but I thought that Hernandez might score one or twice by fooling the offside trap.
I am not sure about Fletcher, but pretty sure that he wasn't available (be it not match fit or sick). However, Park on the middle seem a very good solution and totally forgot about it now. He did an excellent job on Pirlo when we battered Milan, and Busquets is quite similar to Pirlo. For sure, it would have worked better than Rooney against him.
Maybe a midfield three of Carrick - Giggs - Park with either Rooney on the left side, or Nani there and Rooney in attack would have worked better.
Ultimately, I think that most likely we would have lost either way. They were just too good for us, and while Fergie might have had better tactics (I never considered him a master tactician in the first place), that Barca team was too good for us. A midfield of Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta is the best midfield ever. While in attack they had the greatest player ever, Pedro on the form of his life and David Villa. We had Rooney, and that's about it.
Now, on 90 minutes everything can happen, and we might have won, but most likely we would have been battered regardless.
On 2009 though, I think that we should have done much better. We were much better matches with them on quality, but even there Fletcher getting wrongly suspended meant that Anderson had to start. And that is a bad thing for a final. If Ronaldo had scored though, who knows what would have happened.
Thanks for the posts! I remember back then being concerned on starting with a midfield two, but I thought that Hernandez might score one or twice by fooling the offside trap.
I am not sure about Fletcher, but pretty sure that he wasn't available (be it not match fit or sick). However, Park on the middle seem a very good solution and totally forgot about it now. He did an excellent job on Pirlo when we battered Milan, and Busquets is quite similar to Pirlo. For sure, it would have worked better than Rooney against him.
Maybe a midfield three of Carrick - Giggs - Park with either Rooney on the left side, or Nani there and Rooney in attack would have worked better.
Ultimately, I think that most likely we would have lost either way. They were just too good for us, and while Fergie might have had better tactics (I never considered him a master tactician in the first place), that Barca team was too good for us. A midfield of Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta is the best midfield ever. While in attack they had the greatest player ever, Pedro on the form of his life and David Villa. We had Rooney, and that's about it.
Now, on 90 minutes everything can happen, and we might have won, but most likely we would have been battered regardless.
On 2009 though, I think that we should have done much better. We were much better matches with them on quality, but even there Fletcher getting wrongly suspended meant that Anderson had to start. And that is a bad thing for a final. If Ronaldo had scored though, who knows what would have happened.
I had my heart in my mouth. That moment could have changed the entire complexion of the game.
You guys were actually very strong in the first 10 minutes, but then Eto'o hit a sucker punch and we basically controlled the rest of the match.
We wouldn't have won against that Barca side, they were better than us physically, mentally and medically...
Yep, Ronaldo came quite close to scoring in those 10 minutes (2 times really close) and we actually had some chances even after you scored the first goal, in addition to a very good chance by Park and Ronaldo just after Messi's goal. Do not remember Ronaldo ever being that wasteful.
On the second match, the only chance we had was the goal (which was offside in the first place) and a claim for penalty, which IMO wasn't a pen. Barca could have scored an another 5 times in that match, but you lost too many chances. Ironically, if we had this current version of De Gea, there is no way that Pedro and especially Messi would have scored those goals. Messi's goal in particular was on the center of the goal, but VDS reflexes were gone.
They were miles ahead of us in 2011, but that's exactly why we never should have tried to meet them in open combat., That great Xavi-Busquets-Iniesta side lost sieged battles the year before and after the 2011 final, first against Mourinho's Inter in 2010 and uh, Roberto Di Matteo's Chelsea in 2012 when sides parked the bus against them.
We had Rio and Vidic still in fine form at 32 and 29 years old, basically prime years for CBs if they are sitting deep with no space to be exploited in behind with pace, and Van Der Sar and Carrick in front. Fabio at RB would obviously have had to have had a strong performance at RB and Dani Alves might well have exploited Nani being average defensively on the other side, but if you watch the game again, Vidic was truly brilliant in the first half and I think a 1-0 or penalties win was on. Chicharito coming on in the 65th minute for a knackered Park or Giggs to give their CBs a go and who knows?
Instead, we played them straight up like a hapless group of villains in an action film and once they figured out how to deal with us, they played us off the park and we were incredibly lucky to be 1-1 at halftime and only lose 3-1 on the day.
I agree we completely shot ourselves in the foot with the Barca final in 2011.
Nani should of started. Rooney upfront with Park in the middle with Giggs and Carrick.
Nani should of started. Rooney upfront with Park in the middle with Giggs and Carrick.
And me in the newbie forum here
Schalke were really poor, and Chelsea were slow and not dynamic at all. Arsenal had a proper 3-man midfield and dominated almost the same lineup we used for the final.
Chelsea deserve to have a CL trophy. Perhaps 2012 was the wrong year, but from 2005-2010 they deserved to win one IMO.
Dislike this, but true. I also find it highly amusing they won a CL trophy before Arsenal.
I still think we would have lost regardless given the gulf in quality but a more conservative approach may have at least made it more of a contest. The 3-1 score line does not really reflect the game - it was almost like Barcelona "declared" at 3 goals and we brought on Scholes to help play out the rest of the game (without remotely threatening their goal). It could have ended up much, much more embarrassing.
It's an enduring mystery why Fergie, having the contrasting lessons of the 2008 semi (against an inferior Barcelona) and the 2009 final, went with 2 up front. Perhaps his pride and sense of United's place in football's pantheon would not allow him to set United up like rank underdogs in a showpiece final (and one in which United had a kind of home advantage).
Yep. I still believe united were better than barcelona in 2009, they just played stupidly and completely unraveled after conceding an early goal on the counter.
2011 was a game of cat and mouse. Barcelona would've won that game no matter what united did. The moment they decided to step it up and go for the kill, they scored twice in 10 minutes. You never had a chance
That's why they won in 2012. Karma
United should not keep mourinho more than three seasons. He's the right manager to right the ship and get united back among the elite, not the one to maximize their talent and take them above barcelona/madrid
Funny how we won the treble in 2009 but not in 2011. In 2009 we were very lucky against Chelsea and the final against United was very evenly matched.
In 2011 we were a class above everyone else, but Real were on the up with Mourinho and he outsmarted us in the Copa Del Rey final.
Here's another one: Mourinho made Real Madrid what it is today. Back in the late 2000's they were pathetic, even getting battered 5-0 by Liverpool. Jose did spend a lot of money, but he spend wisely. He also got rid of the loser mentality that had been plaguing the team for years, when they always went out in the Ro16 of the CL.
Football is ultimately a game based on skill, ability, motivation and luck. Tactics are hugely overrated.
Christ, have you really watched it again? That's one game I could never stomach to go through again. 2009 final I would be interested just to see what might have been. But 2011 there was never a hope really.
Mourinho will sign Greizmann in the summer and revert back to a 4-2-3-1 next season and we will have the same poor start as we did this season.
- Status