FA Cup Final Thread - Utd v Chelsea

Bateman

I really don't think that sums anything up. IMO Chelsea scored with the most well-crafted attack of the match. I think that sums it up a little better!

PHB

I don't think anybody would disagree with that statement, but that said, nobody was in the first place.

Sizzler

Bateman wrote:

I really don't think that sums anything up. IMO Chelsea scored with the most well-crafted attack of the match. I think that sums it up a little better!

In fairness I seem to remember Rooney serving up an equally good scoring chance which Giggs contrived to make a balls of The difference was Chelsea took theirs.

On another note I heard the fans voted the Hot Dog seller as man of the match

redspider

I havent read all of this thread, and no doubt what I say below has probabbly been expressed here and elsewhere.

It was a close tight game and neither side risked all out attack. Indeed both attacks were muted and not firing as well as they could. This made it easier for the defences. Chances were few and far between. The 2nd half had more spark and the chances were getting closer. An early goal would have made it a better game for the neutral as it would have forced one of the teams to take more risks in attack and opened the game up earlier.

One big talking incident of the match was the Giggs near-goal. It looked as if the ball was over the line, but it is clear that Giggs fouled Cech. Gone are the days of Nat Lofthouse and bundling goalie and ball into the net. The Ref had a poor view of the incident and just waved on, and the linesman didnt see much either from his angle. But a no-goal was the correct outcome.

It would have been interesting to see what goal-line technology would have done in this case, and lets presume the ball crossed the line. Would the Ref have missed the foul? Probably, and a goal may have been awarded.

Afterwards, Giggs admitted as much that he had fouled Cech, but with no whistle blown he was screaming for the awarding of a goal. He didnt think he was fouled per se, unlike Ferguson and Quieroz who made it their main talking point after the match for some reason. Robben was similarly 'nudged' over in the penalty box and it wasnt given so I think the Ref got his calls correct overall and didnt favour one team or the other.

The Drogba-Lampard 1-2 goal was fairly textbook stuff. Not spectacular in my book and quite simple, yet affective, and lack of man-marking meant that Drogba got off his shot and finished well. I thought Van Der Sar perhaps could have been out a bit faster and would blame him 20% for the goal, and Ferdinand perhaps 30-40%.

Overall, a tight game. Petr Cech played well and kept Chelsea in the game at times. Either team could have won it depending on if their chances went in ir not. I thought it was going to be a 1 goal game as the game progressed and it proved to be the case.

So, two tophies to Chelsea. Does the win give Mourinho a stay-of-execution? I think it will at least until the end of June. By then, Abramovich's memory of the FA Cup will be dwindling, but it was a trophy that he wanted to win, even perhaps more than the league. The CL is the one that he wants though and its likely he will payoff and dump Mourinho in his quest to do so, providing he can get someone better in the close season.

Man Utd clearly wanted to win the league this season and it was their target so overall losing the Cup final cant be a major dissapointment.

So, overall, it was a fair share of the spoils for the domestic English honours.

Redspider

MisterAnarchy

Jose Mourinho claims he has outwitted Sir Alex Ferguson by masterminding a tactical victory in the FA Cup final.

Mourinho insisted United would not have scored had they played for three hours.

'We handled Ronaldo very well but our plans were not for Ronaldo - our plans were for Man United,' said Mourinho. 'They are a team of quality and for me their best quality is counter-attack.

'People can think that they are a very dominant team in the game, but I disagree. They kill opponents by counter-attack.

'So if they kill opponents by counter-attack, that is what you have to stop: first of all no counter-attack; secondly, a minimum of six players behind the ball line so when you lose the ball there you have those six players there.

'Thirdly, when you can, you do double marking on the wingers.

'We worked on it during the week, the players understood what to do and you need that little bit of luck to win these big matches, and that was scoring in the last minute, but I think we deserved that.'

Utter negativity and cynicism.
Chelsea played just like they did against Liverpool in the CL second leg at Anfield, bereft of imagination and attacking purpose.
Chelsea were there for the taking yesterday if United only had the courage to be more positive.

PHB

I can't but respect Mourinho for saying that. He is very honest about how he thinks. At least he can accept the way he plays to win.

The Muppet

It was a dreadful game, The goal that wasn't should have been given or else it was a free out. The ref had a clear view of Giggs challenge for the ball and the fact he didn't give a free indicates he didn't see it as a foul. That said If it was up the other end I wouldn't be happy if a free out was not awarded.

United created the most openings but didn't finish any of them . Chelsea created and took their chance very well, Congratulations to them.

Hobart

A total bore-fest for the neutral. United were abysmal, Chelsea as bad. I would not say Ronaldo has been found out, but he was very well marshalled out of the game. Rooney once more showed that he is not a consummate centre forward and could have done with playing off somebody, to supplement his runs. Having said that he has the heart of a lion and must be commended for never giving up.

Carrick was nowhere, and reverted to his "safest option" passing game instead of trying to split a Chelsea defence which included Essien as a centre half, if ever a player was mis-placed it's Essien at centre half! It speaks volumes that united could not exploit the obvious frailties that Essien has in this position and all in all I would say that Fergie called it wrong on this occasion.

Chelsea looked like the team hungrier to win this trophy to make up for their recent defeats in the League and CL semi final. They slowed the game down to a snails pace and created few chances. The 'Giggs incident' is moot. It did appear to cross the line, however Cech was pushed over the line by Giggs, that aside, he should have roofed it and was probably fouled on his initial attempt. It was neither a goal, peno or free out, as it wasn't given.

The one piece of class on the day won it. Mikel fought well for the ball and made himself available for a pass to Drogba, who one-two'd it with Lampard (a quality pass) and he finished it well, to land a killer blow to Manu.

Chelsea probably deserved it for that one bit of quality. This final will be forgotten quite quickly and was probably a disaster for the marketeers associated with the "New Wembley" . Roll on this Wednesday for some real cup action.

Congrats Chelsea!

keltoms

redspider wrote:

One big talking incident of the match was the Giggs near-goal. It looked as if the ball was over the line, but it is clear that Giggs fouled Cech. Gone are the days of Nat Lofthouse and bundling goalie and ball into the net. The Ref had a poor view of the incident and just waved on, and the linesman didnt see much either from his angle. But a no-goal was the correct outcome.
Redspider

this should have been a peno awarded to united. essien fouled him from behind and the only reason giggs didnt appeal the peno was because he thought it was a goal. i know that there wasnt much contact but it was still a peno, the ref wasnt in a great position at all. although saying all that giggs still should have buried it, he lost a lot of sharpness in the last couple of games:o

revileandy

A poor match by all accounts, I was very surprised united didn't try to attack that bit more but when they have the midfield 'dynamo' of Carrick and Fletcher what can we expect? Hopefully the arrival of Hargreaves will see both of those clowns confined to the bench next season.

ntlbell

revileandy wrote:

A poor match by all accounts, I was very surprised united didn't try to attack that bit more but when they have the midfield 'dynamo' of Carrick and Fletcher what can we expect? Hopefully the arrival of Hargreaves will see both of those clowns confined to the bench next season.

So it was Carrick/Fletecher's fault?

What about the dynamo's that are rooney/giggs/scholes/ronaldo....

What did they do?

What does the best mid field player in the world do when he looks up and see's 11 shirts of the opposing team? and the small number of his team mates that seem to refuse to run off the ball?

It had nothing to do with Carrick and fletch, it was a combination of chelsea's tactics (fear to play football against a better side) and the fact half the untied side didn't turn up at all.

stop the nonsense!

leninbenjamin

revileandy wrote:

A poor match by all accounts, I was very surprised united didn't try to attack that bit more but when they have the midfield 'dynamo' of Carrick and Fletcher what can we expect? Hopefully the arrival of Hargreaves will see both of those clowns confined to the bench next season.

you musn't have seen much of the match, seeing as Fletcher was out on the right wing for most of the game. also, Carrick was playing very deep and couln't really affect the game going forward as much as one might of liked. the creativity role fell to scholes, who didn't do half bad with his long passess to split the defense. hell the midfield could hardly be blamed for Utds failure seeing as Giggs missed the game's best chance and Rooney was sent through a number of times only to be let down by a bad touch or running to early.

iregk

Well it was a shocker. Both teams had decent chances but all in all over 120mins off football there was what, 2-3 chances a piece. Thats fairly woeful for this level of football.

Both teams looked shattered and going through the motions and to be fair I agree with redspider. Everyone waxed lyrical about Lampards return to drogba, it was a standard 1-2 nothing fancy yet stunningly effective. Ferdinand was caught wanting on the return ball and hence the goal.

Overall it could have been anyones but I think Chelsea just edged it for me (that said its possibly a touch of blue tinted glasses there). The Giggs goal I can't believe everyone is still going on about it. Did Giggs appeal for the peno no. Why because he thought it was in. Truth is the ref nor linesman could see so by the laws can't give it. Nobody appealed for the peno so the ref assumes there is no peno. There was no point in giving a foul on the keeper he had it in his hands anyway so the only logical result. Play on.

The problem with these games though are usually the fa cup has two of the top teams and neither want to give an inch so its a bore fest. I recall about 2 finals over the past 10 years that were of any use. What you need is a West Ham, a lower team who is happy to be there with nothing to loose. They will go for it and give us a great game.

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote:

Nobody appealed for the peno so the ref assumes there is no peno.

So, what you are saying here is player SHOULD be crowding the ref and screaming for a penalty? That is rubbish, the players should not be doing that, the players shouldn't be appealing for anything.

herbieflowers

I thought Chelsea played in a typically Chelsea-like fashion. They stopped Man U playing. Simple as. Man U's game is all about explosive counter-attack, Chelsea were able to quell that threat by not committing too many forward (Drogba was often isolated) and etting men back quickly. And it worked. They took their chance when it came along, perhaps the only clear cut chance of the match and fair play to them.

Slightly disappointed by Man U's performance, they played into Chelsea's hands - I'm surprised they didn't get the ball out wide more quickly, that they didn't anticipate Chelsea's tactics and, perhaps, that they couldn't deal with Chelsea's tactics. That said on another day the score could've been different. I mean, Chelsea played a similar game vs Liverpool at Anfield but failed to create chances like Poll did (Kuyt's 'goal', header off the bar). More generally speaking, I think Chelsea's game is limited - yet ironically can snuff out any style of play, relying not on scoring but stopping the other team from scoring first and foremost and hoping to nick it.

But fair play Chelsea!

iregk

Tauren wrote:

So, what you are saying here is player SHOULD be crowding the ref and screaming for a penalty? That is rubbish, the players should not be doing that, the players shouldn't be appealing for anything.

I never said players should crowd the red. I simply said neither giggs or smith looked for a pen so neither of them felt it was a penalty.

Aldini98

Awful match, worthy of a 3rd/4th Place play-off, wait a minute, it was.

county

*yawn*

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote:

I never said players should crowd the red. I simply said neither giggs or smith looked for a pen so neither of them felt it was a penalty.

cause they were claiming a goal - so the ref should have given it....

iregk

Tauren wrote:

cause they were claiming a goal - so the ref should have given it....

Ok so because Giggs and Smith were claiming a goal the ref should have given it. Can't argue with your logic!

Reread what you posted in response to my penalty point and see where you contradict yourself.

Mitch Connor

iregk wrote:

Ok so because Giggs and Smith were claiming a goal the ref should have given it. Can't argue with your logic!

Reread what you posted in response to my penalty point and see where you contradict yourself.

No, i was making sport of your logic that the ref had no reason to give a penalty because the players didn't ask for one. They did ask for a goal, so should the ref have given it?:rolleyes: