Manchester United -vs- Chelsea Sun 23 Sept

Mitch Connor

don't remember one either, but chelsea did get into some good positions, and United got a bit lucky in defence on a couple of occasions as well. It was a bit like how united have performed this season - doing well to get into the final 3rd, but lacking the cutting edge when they get there. Had Lampard and Drogba been there to provide options VDS probably would have been called on a lot more.

iregk

Deleted User wrote:

It begins and ends on the pitch. The first step to restoring order is getting the results.

At times results don't come until the order is in place in the background.

Deleted User wrote:

Doesnt matter if he was last man or first man, it was dangerous, what if he broke his ankle, which he easily could have done, would it still be just a yellow then??

I can see your point and I do agree with you. I don't think Joe (or at least hope) that he didn't set out to deliberately injure Ronaldo just take him down to prevent an attack. I've dont this plenty of times in my football life, getting a yellow for the benefit of the team. In that respect I think it was yellow. I don't think weather an player gets injured or not stipulates the colour of the card.

Deleted User wrote:

I agree to a degree but in real time it looked awful and thats all the ref has to go on. He doesnt have the benefit of 101 replays and Andy Grays bullsh*t.

I didn't think it looked that bad in real time. It was actually worse in the replay.

Deleted User wrote:

It wasnt a dive, it was an exaggeration. I agree, there is too much diving, but your condoning of Cole's "tackle" is worse than diving. id rather see it as it is now than stuff like that coming back into the game on a regular basis.

Each to their own I guess but I'd rather see a good physical mans game of football rather than a team of Saha's and Robbens throwing themselves all over the place.

event

leninbenjamin wrote:

am i the only one who thinks the ref was well within his rights to send Mikel off? studs showing like, he could have done some serious damage.

also, remember when Cech hit Rooney on the back of the head? it was a proper ****ing punch with the hand that WASN'T going for the ball. Goalkeepers get too much special treatment for me these days, even if Rooney wasn't going to the win the ball i felt Cech should have been sanctioned with a card or something for that.

then there's Cole's challenge on Ronaldo... what goes through these refs heads sometimes?

if you're going into the cech incident, rooney should have been sent off for his push on Cashley, would have been a 2nd yellow

Mitch Connor

event wrote:

if you're going into the cech incident, rooney should have been sent off for his push on Cashley, would have been a 2nd yellow

yeah - he should have, but then maybe if the ref hadn't ballsed the decision on the Cole dive Rooney wouldn't have got booked in the first place.

Really not a great day for the ref...

LostinBlanch

But I saw this on another forum. OK I know it's tribalfootball but still it's funny if true! Mourinho walked out with his scouting reports on United

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=57972

Mourinho walked out of Chelsea with Man Utd scouting info
tribalfooball.com - September 23, 2007

Chelsea's preparations for yesterday's defeat at Manchester United were in chaos after it emerged that Jose Mourinho had left Stamford Bridge with his scouting reports on the opposition.

The Daily Mail says Avram Grant had to start from scratch when Mourinho departed at 10am last Thursday with the detailed dossiers and form guides on key United players that had been prepared for him by opposition scout Andre Villas.

Chelsea players, who usually have a clear indication of the team a day in advance of a match, were also left in the dark about the line-up until 2pm yesterday.

Grant did not take the players for training on Saturday because he was observing Yom Kippur and, to the dismay of senior players, he delayed revealing the team until he arrived at their hotel in Manchester.

Mourinho had been due to give the players their individual dossiers after they returned from a day off following the 1-1 draw with Rosenborg on Thursday morning.

That was until Mourinho left the club "by mutual consent" on Wednesday evening.

Chelsea's owner Roman Abramovich gave consent for Mourinho to say goodbye and pick up his personal effects from the club's training ground last Thursday, but probably didn't realise the Portuguese had departed with his scouting reports and other statistical data.

jackdaw

Completely undeserved ...

Not a red card

1st goal .. scored in the 3rd minute of a 2 min extra time .

.. not a penalty..

don't get me wrong Chelsea had no shots on target , they didn't deserve to win ..
but i don't think they deserved to lose 2-0 ..

i think it was harsh .. 0-0 would have been a fair result ..

anyway it's the Leeds united way for Chelsea now ...

Mitch Connor

It is a MINIMUM of 2 minutes added time, not a maximum, and personally i think the ref should only blow up for full or half time when neither team is attacking.

Mikel went in with both feet forward so two-footed can be argued.

Penalty is debatable but a penalty according to the rules, also should have been a penalty for Coles tackle on Evra in the first half.

As for Chelsea doing a Leeds....are you having a laugh?

Dave!

jackdaw wrote:

Completely undeserved ...

Not a red card

1st goal .. scored in the 3rd minute of a 2 min extra time .

.. not a penalty..

don't get me wrong Chelsea had no shots on target , they didn't deserve to win ..
but i don't think they deserved to lose 2-0 ..

i think it was harsh .. 0-0 would have been a fair result ..

anyway it's the Leeds united way for Chelsea now ...

0-0?! My arse. United dominated the game completely and had plenty of chances. At half time it was 10 attempts to 1. Saha's penalty is debateable, but Ashley Cole took down Evra earlier on, so that should have been a penalty anyway.

2-0 was a fair result in my opinion.

leninbenjamin

Tauren wrote:

It is a MINIMUM of 2 minutes added time, not a maximum, and personally i think the ref should only blow up for full or half time when neither team is attacking.

hmmm... i always thought it was written in stone that a ref isn't to blow when a scoring chance is on the cards? I remember a goal scored by Wimbledon with the last kick of an FA cup round a few years back that wasn't allowed because the ref blew before the ball hit the back of the net (or something along those lines), and anyway it all brought this crap up... at the time i thought the general consensus was that refs weren't supposed to blow up in a situation like that according to their guidelines?

astrofool

I think the general consensus was for the ref's not to be stupid, if you're adding on time to let a team take a corner, then you give them that time, not blow the whistle as soon as the ball is touched.

iregk

leninbenjamin wrote:

I remember a goal scored by Wimbledon with the last kick of an FA cup round a few years back that wasn't allowed because the ref blew before the ball hit the back of the net

That was a goal from a corner. The ref allowed them to take the corner but with teh ball in midflight he blew the whistle. They got on the end of the corner and burried a header. In that case if the ref thinks there is time to take the corner then he shouldn't blow until its cleared.

In the chelsea case the corner was cleared so it should have been blown up. Still doesn't disguise that Terry completely lost his man and was found wanting. He has got to rediscover his form.

Mitch Connor

i'd argue it wasn't cleared, as with that you could imply any touch from a defender at all would count as a clearence. they got the ball out of the box, but United were still attacking as it went straight to their plar just a couple of yards outside the box. I can understand why chelsea fans would be annoyed, but to me the attack hadn't broken down so i think it is right the ref didn't blow.

leninbenjamin

iregk wrote:

In the chelsea case the corner was cleared so it should have been blown up. Still doesn't disguise that Terry completely lost his man and was found wanting. He has got to rediscover his form.

yeah, you're kinda contradicting yourself there. i wouldn't call the effective pass to United player a clearence. tbh as soon as the flight of the ball became clear you knew the danger wasn't over, a ref shouldn't have blown imo. if a chelsea player however had gained possession from the clearence though then in my book the ref would have had reason to blowup, but not while Chelsea's box is full of Utd players and the ball is in possession of Utd. the ball didn't even make it much distance up the field, i dont see how anyone could call that a clearence.

Dacelonid

Have to agree with leninbenjamin, the ball wasn't exactly cleared by Chelsea and as it was headed out and Browne went to head it back to Giggs, I shouted at the ref not to blow it up as it United were still attacking.

As regards the rest of it, United deserved to win, but would have been a better match without the ref mucking it up.
Don't think he got a major decision right, Mikel didn't deserve to be sent off, J Cole did, Cashley should have been booked for Diving, Terry should have been booked for interfering with the ref over the red card (might face sanctions anyway http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,1765_2754008,00.html)
Evra should have had a Peno, Saha shouldn't. The ref really spoilt what should have been a good match. Not that I am complaining it, is another 3 points, and up into 2nd so pleased with that.

Other than that there were some very encouraging signs yesterday. The defense is looking a lot steadier, midfield is starting to gel a bit, Carrick especially had a good game I thought. Some of his passing was great. And now Tevez has scored. and Saha is our top scorer. All in all a lot of good signs from the match that the team is staring to improve and get a bit of momentum behind them.