Marseille vs Manchester United 23/2/11 Champions League last 16 match thread

VW 1

parker kent wrote: »

You do realise how ridiculous that comparison is?

Any sane person should be able to agree that getting to the final counts as nearly winning the Champions League.

Agree with this, if you have beaten 30 of the top athletes in the world to get into the final against Usain Bolt, you have come as close as possible to winning, regardless of how close the final is.

Bodhisopha

parker kent wrote: »

You do realise how ridiculous that comparison is?

Any sane person should be able to agree that getting to the final counts as nearly winning the Champions League.

Any sane person that watched the match would know that Man United didn't "almost win" the Champions League that season. They were comprehensively outclassed and beaten.

The comparison stands. They came a distant second, just like Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago did in the 100 metre finals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Pro. F

parker kent wrote: »

There is a massive difference in the current system and the 4-5-1 played when Beckham-Keane-Scholes-Veron-Giggs was the midfield. Under the post-2005 formation, it has been people like Ronaldo, Nani etc have greater licence to remain forward when they team is defending. Under the old 4-5-1, there was greater emphasis on the third midfielder (usually Scholes or Veron) to support the striker in a similar position to what Peter Beardsley would have taken up. The other 4 played essentially as a normal midfield in a 4-4-2.

There is a big difference in then and now. There is a link between the different formations, but they are not "essentially the same thing".

Also, I do think that the formation plays a role in the defensive record. Sure Evra, Vidic and Ferdinand are excellent, but football is about more than 3 people. Michael Carrick's interceptions play a big role in the defensive record. Anybody that goes to OT will always notice how much he does in front of the defense. His passing and ability to dictate a game are average, but his interceptions are vital. Any new set of midfielders will need to replace that. Fletchers energy and hassling of the opposition is vital to the defensive record too.

I'm not taking away from the back 5 (VDS is a massive component of the defense), but they are not doing it all by themselves.

The difference between the formations is more about the actual players we have. During the Beckham Giggs time they both did their fair share of tracking back. During the Ronaldo time he did very little, but the opposite winger was nearly always somebody who did loads of grafting so it evened out.

<Edit:> And the other four midfielders in the early 00s teams were not like a normal four in a 442 if you are suggesting that they were like the 4411 of pre 2000. They were far more conservative then that. </Edit>

Carrick does do a lot of covering the defence and Fletcher does do a lot of grafting to protect the back four. But again, that is as much a personnel change as a formational one.

Giggs, Keane, Veron, Scholes, Beckham from the early 00s (for example) played differently to Rooney, Old Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher, Ronaldo (for example) - of coarse they did, they were different players. But the underlying strategy was the same. A conservative one.

And we did not exclusively use 433 since 2005 in Europe.

All this total changing in personnel and continuous tinkering with formation argues against a change of formation in 2005 being the reason for success. And we know that the change in strategy happened in 2000/2001, when Fergie said it did. And it has had a mix of results since then. The high point of the conservative strategy coincided with us having the best defence in the world, a lot of grafters in midfield and the best attacker in the world.

When I started this discussion by questioning Flah's and P. Larkin's statement about our record being better than the days of 442 I didn't do it to be breaking peoples balls over the topic. I did it because it is something that I see often accepted and used as justification for our defensiveness. But when you actually look at it, it's the players we had that were the real key to our success over those few years.

Ush1 wrote: »

Still are. By some distance for me.

When Rio is fit yeah. But we've seen some woeful defending when he's been out this season. Now that Smalling is establishing himself I'm actually very happy about the defence without Rio. I just didn't think anyone would believe me if I went proclaiming our defence again already.

parker kent

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Any sane person that watched the match would know that Man United didn't "almost win" the Champions League that season. They were comprehensively outclassed and beaten.

The comparison stands. They came a distant second, just like Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago did in the 100 metre finals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

No they were well beaten in a single game, but that doesn't change the fact that getting to a final means they almost won it. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. There was a game of football to decide who won the trophy, it should be obvious that a game of football can go either way. United were outplayed that night but on any given night they can beat Barcelona, as was proved 1 months earlier. So obviously getting to a final against a team they had beaten 12 months earlier counts as almost winning it.

Arguing otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

Ush1

Pro. F wrote: »

When Rio is fit yeah. But we've seen some woeful defending when he's been out this season. Now that Smalling is establishing himself I'm actually very happy about the defence without Rio. I just didn't think anyone would believe me if I went proclaiming our defence again already.

They are comfortably the best by a long way. Mind you there isn't much competition. Chelsea used to be fairly solid and as for Inter, defending in numbers isn't the same as a great defence.

Bodhisopha

parker kent wrote: »

No they were well beaten in a single game, but that doesn't change the fact that getting to a final means they almost won it. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. There was a game of football to decide who won the trophy, it should be obvious that a game of football can go either way. United were outplayed that night but on any given night they can beat Barcelona, as was proved 1 months earlier. So obviously getting to a final against a team they had beaten 12 months earlier counts as almost winning it.

Arguing otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

Beaten in a single game? That game just happened to be the final!!!

It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out what you're doing here.

The pain of that final was too much to bear for you and you have reframed the memory as "almost winning" rather than getting comprehensively beaten in the final.

A good alternative would be for you to say "went very far in the Champions League", because it's complimentary, true and most importantly it's not in the slightest bit delusional.

parker kent

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Beaten in a single game? That game just happened to be the final!!!

It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out what you're doing here.

The pain of that final was too much to bear for you and you have reframed the memory as "almost winning" rather than getting comprehensively beaten in the final.

A good alternative would be for you to say "went very far in the Champions League", because it's complimentary, true and most importantly it's not in the slightest bit delusional.

Some people really do take the píss on here. I'm not delusional. They were destroyed on the night. But any team that gets to a final can say they almost won it. Petty semantic arguments saying I should really say "went very far" is ridiculous. They did more than go far, they were in the final ffs.

I'm not trying to do anything, I'm not viewing it with United tinted glasses. Any team that gets to a final nearly wins the competition. The same way Liverpool nearly won 2 Champions Leagues under Benitez or any other team in the history of football that gets to a final has nearly won the competition they were in. If only 1 other team does better than you in a cup competition, you can say you nearly won it.

Bodhisopha

parker kent wrote: »

Some people really do take the píss on here. I'm not delusional. They were destroyed on the night. But any team that gets to a final can say they almost won it. Petty semantic arguments saying I should really say "went very far" is ridiculous. They did more than go far, they were in the final ffs.

I'm not trying to do anything, I'm not viewing it with United tinted glasses. Any team that gets to a final nearly wins the competition. The same way Liverpool nearly won 2 Champions Leagues under Benitez or any other team in the history of football that gets to a final has nearly won the competition they were in. If only 1 other team does better than you in a cup competition, you can say you nearly won it.

Okay, so by that reasoning Richard Thompson almost won gold in the Olympics.

I disagree. Leave it there.

parker kent

You are the only one talking about athletics. Last time I checked second is as close as you can come to first.