Man United V Chelsea 2nd leg (will contain scores)

WhiteWashMan

PORNAPSTER wrote:

In the premiership United have conceeded 14, Chelsea 8. Out of those 14 United have conceeded 8 goals with Rio playing. Surely that tells its own story.

and of course when the referee or assistant referee decide the ball is not at least 3 yards over the line in the last minute of a game at old trafford....

cournioni

That too.

TwoShedsJackson

PORNAPSTER wrote:

The dream that Newcastle might actually win something some day... Nah I think I'll let that go.

I let that one go a while ago now, some of can admit when our team aren't good enough...

Villain

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Well Ray Wilkins, George Graham and Andy Gray thought it was a penalty... I don't think it was that weak of a shout.

But the ref who was a few yards away didn't, and I think Andy Gray said he wasn't sure after seeing a front view of it.

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Surely that tells its own story.

Yep they rely on one player too much

Aquos76

bazH wrote:

Well it was fun to watch the queue of scum fans walk out of the pub with heads low, mumbling about random injustice.

And now for the Finale, Pool v Chelsea.....

Less of the scum ok. This is not good from a mod, many others have been pulled for use of this work by the mods on here, then you come on and use it. Double standards me thinks.

Aquos76

irish1 wrote:

But the ref who was a few yards away didn't, and I think Andy Gray said he wasn't sure after seeing a front view of it.
D

Yes from the front view I am also unsure, but the ref did not have a front view.

Like 95% of all penalties, camera angles always tell a different story. The ref will only have the one angle and a split second to make a decision.

growler

I love all the talk of the potential psychological blow that Chelsea would suffer if they lost to Man U last night, of course they didn't ( unsurprising given their recent record at OT) but I can't see how Liverpool are going to be better able to deal with them in the Final, though in a final you never know.

I think this is a huge boost to the spirit at Chelsea, a Cup in the bag by the end of next month will boost morale even further and now we have Man U and Arse playing mind games for second place.

United fans are just a wee bit upset to see their glory days rapidly dissappearing into the past :-)

cournioni

irish1 wrote:

But the ref who was a few yards away didn't, and I think Andy Gray said he wasn't sure after seeing a front view of it.



Yep they rely on one player too much

The referee couldn't see it because Lampard was in front of him. Andy Gray said on three occasions that it was a penalty. If you make a challenge in the box, you don't make contact with the ball and you catch the player it is a penalty. Simple as.

As for United relying on one player too much, Chelsea wouldn't fare much better without Terry or Lampard on their team.

Villain

PORNAPSTER wrote:

The referee couldn't see it because Lampard was in front of him. Andy Gray said on three occasions that it was a penalty. If you make a challenge in the box, you don't make contact with the ball and you catch the player it is a penalty. Simple as.

There was no contact and Andy Gray said it was not a penalty when he saw the front view, did you miss him saying that?

PORNAPSTER wrote:

As for United relying on one player too much, Chelsea wouldn't fare much better without Terry or Lampard on their team.

Oh yes they would and thats 2 players

yop

"There was no contact and Andy Gray said it was not a penalty when he saw the front view, did you miss him saying that?"

Possibly he did but there were also the 3 lads on the panel on SKY who said that it was, then on UTV last nite there were 3 more on that panel who said it was.
There definately was contact, no doubting it at all, Stiles bottled it, was not given, sin é, you get some, you don't others, it happens..

The Muppet

growler wrote:

United fans are just a wee bit upset to see their glory days rapidly dissappearing into the past :-)

Thats a pretty bold statement. Chelsea have not won anything yet. There was very little between the teams last night so you have a lot of winning to do to surpass Uniteds achievements. Next season will be a better indication of how/if United have slipped provided we don't get any serious injuries or silly suspension to our best players.






.

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

In the premiership United have conceeded 14, Chelsea 8. Out of those 14 United have conceeded 8 goals with Rio playing. Surely that tells its own story.

It's actually 18 games that Rio has played in the Premiership and they conceded 9.
And Terry has conceded 8 in 24 games.

When you compare that to the likes of:

Ledley King 24 games - 26 goals conceded
Jamie Carragher 24 games - 25 goals conceded
Kolo Toure 24 games - 25 goals conceded.

Chelsea and Utd's defence is fairly similar, statistically speaking.

B.

Bateman

yop wrote:

"There was no contact and Andy Gray said it was not a penalty when he saw the front view, did you miss him saying that?"

Possibly he did but there were also the 3 lads on the panel on SKY who said that it was, then on UTV last nite there were 3 more on that panel who said it was.
There definately was contact, no doubting it at all, Stiles bottled it, was not given, sin é, you get some, you don't others, it happens..

From what I remember, Townsend definitely said he thought the ref got it right, and I think the others agreed, so the ITV lads didn't think it was a peno.

I don't think "bottle" comes into it when giving United a peno at OT. When it's the away team, bottle comes into it, but when it's United, not at all.

growler

The Muppet wrote:

Thats a pretty bold statement. Chelsea have not won anything yet. There was very little between the teams last night so you have a lot of winning to do to surpass Uniteds achievements. Next season will be a better indication of how/if United have slipped provided we don't get any serious injuries or silly suspension to our best players.
.

I know, I'm just an extremely happy Chelsea fan delighted to contending for serious honours (and the Carling Cup) after years of underachievement and sexy football while Man U and Arsenal clean up. :-)

It was a penalty, the only think I think may have influenced the ref would be
(a) he was going away from goal and Bridge couldn't have possibly intended to kick him or (b) Mourinho's comments after the last game regarding Fergie's alledged influence on officials.

Either way, Chelsea have had a great record against Utd in recent times, our defence and keeper are outstanding and they underr Jose's tutelage have raised the bar for winning the Premiership (as Arsenal did last season).

Bateman

growler wrote:

Either way, Chelsea have had a great record against Utd in recent times, our defence and keeper are outstanding and they underr Jose's tutelage have raised the bar for winning the Premiership (as Arsenal did last season).

We will see about "raising the bar". Chelsea might stumble over the line this season, we may not break the points record (especially if we are still involved in the FA Cup and the CL), and we obviously won't beat Arsenal's unbeaten record. So it's kind of difficult to see how the bar will be raised, unless you're predicting that we break United's 1999 points total. Mourinho's Porto team had a habit of losing meaningless league games after the title had been secured, although he does say in the book that although he would put out a less than strongest team, he would never belittle such games as European qualification/relegation issues could be at stake for other teams.

yop

"From what I remember, Townsend definitely said he thought the ref got it right, and I think the others agreed, so the ITV lads didn't think it was a peno."

Nope Townsend said it was a penalty then said but he got it right, only Townsend would come with something like that!

I don't think "bottle" comes into it when giving United a peno at OT. When it's the away team, bottle comes into it, but when it's United, not at all."

As said by growler, he did not give it for one of the reasons were Mourhinos comments in the first league, this was bound to be in the back of his mind.

If you look at the majority of newspaper or online match reports they will state that it should have been a penatly, legitimate penalty, chelsea were lucky to escape, but then again I suppose all of these reporters are United fans! .
As I have said it makes not difference now possibly a fact of what comes around goes around!


Ya Chelsea have some hoodoo over us, fair play to ye, playing great football all year throughout this competition, deserve to win it out

cournioni

BaZmO* wrote:

Chelsea and Utd's defence is fairly similar, statistically speaking.

B.

That was the point I was trying to make. Some people here are saying that the Chelsea defence is miles better than any other in the league, which is clearly wrong.

cournioni

irish1 wrote:

There was no contact and Andy Gray said it was not a penalty when he saw the front view, did you miss him saying that?


Oh yes they would and thats 2 players

There was no contact?! :eek: I think you should call into specsavers tomorrow mate. And Gray did not say "it was not a penalty", he said it looked less of a penalty from that angle. Bridge commited himself to the challenge and caught Fortune instead of the ball, it was a penalty. But I am not going to moan about it because at the end of the day Chelsea are through and we aren't. It still could have changed the course of the game though. As could the penalty claim in the first leg.

I said Lampard or Terry. Not and, or.

smuckers

Some fanstastic performances last night, the amount of ground Maka and Lamps made up was incredible and fair play to Tiago, covered Ferreria when needed to be always looks for the ball, isn't quick doesn't have flashy tricks, but is a great athlete, not top drawer but he is young and is getting there. Duff was superb defensively and offensively.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

I know, I'm just an extremely happy Chelsea fan delighted to contending for serious honours (and the Carling Cup) after years of underachievement and sexy football while Man U and Arsenal clean up. :-)

It was a penalty, the only think I think may have influenced the ref would be
(a) he was going away from goal and Bridge couldn't have possibly intended to kick him or (b) Mourinho's comments after the last game regarding Fergie's alledged influence on officials.

Either way, Chelsea have had a great record against Utd in recent times, our defence and keeper are outstanding and they underr Jose's tutelage have raised the bar for winning the Premiership (as Arsenal did last season).

Fair dues. While I always want to see United win I know thats not possible Chelseas progress is good for football as the more teams realistically challenging for titles the better the spectacle for me. Assuming they are not going to blow up Arsenal 2003 style Chelsea will win the League this year and congratulations to them if that happens they deserve it . As arsenal have found out a couple of times winning it is the easy part, holding on to it is another matter.

Saying United are in decline is premature IMO, there was very little in it last night with abit of Luck the score could have been reversed and we have alread beaten Arsenal in the League. Not wishing to make excuses but as I said earlier I will wait to judge United when they play a full season with all their best players available. Hopefully that will be next season.

Congratulations to both Chelsea and Liverpool on reaching the final I,m looking forward to a good game.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote:

Congratulations to both Chelsea and Liverpool on reaching the final I,m looking forward to a good game.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

That was the point I was trying to make. Some people here are saying that the Chelsea defence is miles better than any other in the league, which is clearly wrong.

I know. I totally agree with you. I was just emphasising the point you made.

B.

Villain

PORNAPSTER wrote:

There was no contact?! :eek: I think you should call into specsavers tomorrow mate. And Gray did not say "it was not a penalty", he said it looked less of a penalty from that angle. Bridge commited himself to the challenge and caught Fortune instead of the ball, it was a penalty. But I am not going to moan about it because at the end of the day Chelsea are through and we aren't. It still could have changed the course of the game though. As could the penalty claim in the first leg.

I said Lampard or Terry. Not and, or.

Well if there was contact it was not enough to give a penalty, don't want to harp on, just delighted the Ref got it right, not like the one with Rooney against Arsenal.

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote:

Thats a pretty bold statement. Chelsea have not won anything yet. There was very little between the teams last night so you have a lot of winning to do to surpass Uniteds achievements. Next season will be a better indication of how/if United have slipped provided we don't get any serious injuries or silly suspension to our best players.






.

hahahaha, with all this "next year we will be challenging" you sould like a liverpool fan!

face it, united glory days are over. if you dont buy some ACTUAL quality,(not liam miller and the rest of the lemons) next year you will do worse.

The Muppet

Chucky the tree wrote:

hahahaha, with all this "next year we will be challenging" you sould like a liverpool fan!

face it, united glory days are over. if you dont buy some quality next year you will do worse.

Oh right so. :rolleyes:

cournioni

irish1 wrote:

Well if there was contact it was not enough to give a penalty, don't want to harp on, just delighted the Ref got it right, not like the one with Rooney against Arsenal.

That is from your point of view, millions of other people would disagree with you and that is not just United fans. The ref did get it wrong against Arsenal but lets not bring that up again, because we all know where it will lead...

Thanx 4 The Fish

Leonard, if you have a problem with a post report it otherwise quit your whining. A moderator of another board has absolutely no influence on the soccer board,, if you have a worry about double standards go to the Admins, or mention it to the mods, it really is that easy.

All - please keep it civil.

Roll on the final.

Aquos76

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Leonard, if you have a problem with a post report it otherwise quit your whining. A moderator of another board has absolutely no influence on the soccer board,, if you have a worry about double standards go to the Admins, or mention it to the mods, it really is that easy.

All - please keep it civil.

Roll on the final.

I had and HAVE a problem with being referred to as Scum. I have supportered Man U all my like, and I am 29 by the way. I get really pissed off when people make a generalisation like that. I wanted to give that mod the oppurtunity to retract what he said.

You then end you piece by saying "keep it civil" well do you think Man U fans being referred to as Scum is keeping it civil.

PHB

**** that ****, we won't be challenging next year, next year we're going to do the quadruple,

And hey, wait a minute,
****l that ****, we're winning it this year!

The Muppet

Leonard wrote:

I had and HAVE a problem with being referred to as Scum. I have supportered Man U all my like, and I am 29 by the way. I get really pissed off when people make a generalisation like that. I wanted to give that mod the oppurtunity to retract what he said.

You then end you piece by saying "keep it civil" well do you think Man U fans being referred to as Scum is keeping it civil.

I agree with Leonard and considering the action taken in the link below to another user that used that term his inital post is understandable. BTW I reported the post yesteday so there was a complaint lodged through the proper channels. A bit of consistancy is called for I think. There is absolutly no need to use that term unless the purpose is to provoke confrontation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2273536&postcount=122

cournioni

The Muppet wrote:

I agree with Leonard and considering the action taken in the link below to another user that used that term his inital post is understandable. BTW I reported the post yesteday so there was a complaint lodged through the proper channels. A bit of consistancy is called for I think. There is absolutly no need to use that term unless the purpose is to provoke confrontation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2273536&postcount=122

I have reported it also. Especially as it isn't Baz's first time "contributing" with such generalisations of United supporters.

talla

Action will be taken when possible, there are some technical problems at the moment

Oh and Pornapster, pot kettle black, i recieved several complaints about the scouse thread and action will also be taken on that when everythings back to normal.

The Muppet

talla wrote:

Action will be taken when possible, there are some technical problems at the moment .

Cheers Talla those type of comments are totally uncalled for and not at all helpful in keeping things civil around here.

Iago

Mourinho praises Ferguson's Attitude;

Mourinho also paid tribute to Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson for the way he conducted himself after Chelsea's win at Old Trafford.

"I think I'm learning a lot with him and you know that's a point where I need to improve myself and he is helping me improve.
"I am a bad loser and when I lose I'm not very keen to be with other people and he showed me a lot of respect and a lot of quality in that sense.
"He was with his staff waiting for me and my staff with the bottle of wine I gave him before the game.
"Losing a semi-final is not good, but he was there open and respectful and waiting for me.
"When I have this kind of teacher in this sense when I lose one day I must open my door for the win and I have to say thanks for the way he received me."

Nice to see Ferguson still shows good sportsmanship..

Thanx 4 The Fish

FYI all, scouse is a derogatory term. Bear that in mind.

As talla has said, no action can be taken at the moment, but as soon as it can, it will, and not just about this complaint but all complaints that have been made recently.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

FYI all, scouse is a derogatory term. Bear that in mind.

Is it, in what language? I don't think it is but please enlighten me if I,m wrong. The following are the only definitions for scouse in the online Oxford English dictionary. Theres nothing derogatory there as far as I can see.

Scouse

Brit. informal

• noun 1 the dialect or accent of people from Liverpool. 2 (also Scouser) a person from Liverpool.

• adjective relating to Liverpool.

— ORIGIN abbreviation of lobscouse, a stew formerly eaten by sailors.



Perform another search of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

kida

I reskon it is -
How would you like someone accusing you of being scouse - can't think of much worse

BTW - some of outlaws family are from Liverpool

The Muppet

Oh I hadn't thought of that , maybe that's what he meant.

thanks

Thanx 4 The Fish

How do you fancy being called potato eater because you are irish ? The english gutter press refer to the french as frog eaters. Is that anything less than derogatory ?

The reason that people in liverpool are referred to as scousers is because lobscouse stew was the primary food of Liverpool.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

How do you fancy being called potato eater because you are irish ?

Wouldn't bother me , I'm partial to potatoes.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

The english gutter press refer to the french as frog eaters. Is that anything less than derogatory ?

The relevance to the term scouse is what exactly ?

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

The reason that people in liverpool are referred to as scousers is because lobscouse stew was the primary food of Liverpool.

Except the Everton half who I assume ate Toffees


I am still to be convinced it's a derogatory term. I have heard Liverpudlians refer to themselves as scousers. They musn't know its a derogatory term either.

yop

It is only derogatory if you support liverpool, it is used all over the media not just on boards, I suppose ye will complain to BBC or UTV if one of their shows mentions the word scouser?? Me thinks not, live with it

yop

"How do you fancy being called potato eater because you are irish ? The english gutter press refer to the french as frog eaters. Is that anything less than derogatory ?

The reason that people in liverpool are referred to as scousers is because lobscouse stew was the primary food of Liverpool."

Big off topic all this, is it not, I remember threads been closed for people going totally off topic, I presume this will now be closed for these off topic posts?

PHB

When you guys talk about scouse and united scum you're all joking right? I can sill call Liverpool fans scousers?

The people are just trying to stir it up, right?

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

When you guys talk about scouse and united scum you're all joking right? I can sill call Liverpool fans scousers?

The people are just trying to stir it up, right?

like me calling united fans mancs. its a bit stupid considering none of us are from liverpool or manchester.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Statistics tell their own story, since Rio has come back United have been just as good as Chelsea defensively. You cannot go on how Carroll or Howard look in goals, it must be a statistic. In the premiership United have conceeded 14, Chelsea 8. Out of those 14 United have conceeded 8 goals with Rio playing. Surely that tells its own story.

Maths was never my strong point in school but that makes no sense. As pointed out already with Ferdinand United have played 18 games and conceeded 9 not 8. Chelsea have played 24 games and conceeded 8.

So United with Rio are just as good as Chelsea in defence despite having conceeded more in 33% games less than Chelsea???

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Some things from the game

Robben is **** against good teams at this stage in life
Duff is the threat
Lampard scored and made one tackle, otherwise he was ****, didn't desrve mom.
Chelsea defence can be pressure, as you saw united do at the end, and they are vulnerable to mistakes, just like every other team.
Hopefully every premiership eam will have been watching the match and said, hey I can beat them! Thats all you need for chelsea to start losing points
Unitd are gona be pissed off going to arsenal, so we're gona kill em

How can you be so critical of Chelseas performance after they went to Old Trafford and won? I would hate to see them play well :rolleyes: .

Robben was very good I thought, a constant threat. He definately did better than Duff IMO.

As WWM said, how can Lampard consistently play badly, yet always score the goals that matter? I have watched his recent performances closely to try and see where all the criticism comes from, and Im only beginning to see how much he contributes to a game. His vision is much better than I thought, and his workrate is huge.

Big Ears

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Robben was very good I thought, a constant threat. He definately did better than Duff IMO.

Get a copy/dvd whatever of the game and you will see Duff was better both ofensively and defensively , maybe you just can't remeber the game that well after all this time .

Jivin Turkey wrote:

As WWM said, how can Lampard consistently play badly, yet always score the goals that matter? I have watched his recent performances closely to try and see where all the criticism comes from, and Im only beginning to see how much he contributes to a game. His vision is much better than I thought, and his workrate is huge.

actually forget that its obviously not memorary , his workrate involves going forward , and tracking back , but not picking up a man or tackling , he only gets the ball in defencesive areas because of well misplaced passes .

eirebhoy

I'm actually getting a bid annoyed at every other person rating Robben ahead of Duff. Duff can do absolutely everything Robben can but Mourinho wants Duff to be more of an all round player. Its not Duff's choice that when he's one on one with a defender he'll most likely pass the ball Mourinho has given him a completely different role in the team. We'll see against Portugal that Duff will do a lot more dribbling than he does with Chelsea. Duff has more goals and more assists than Robben this season aswell as doing a lot more defensive wise. I don't know if its coincedence or not but Chelsea have conceded 3 goals in the CL, all of which have come when Duff was substituted.

About a year ago I remember talking to someone about consistency and that Zidane and Duff were the only players we could think of that were constantly superb. Although, Zidane's performances have changed because of age, Duff's have changed because of a new manager. While his new role is benefitting Chelsea, I'd prefer Duff to be running amoc down the wing as he'd be rated higher by anyone and everyone and I like to see the Irish succeed. Its a shame that even though his defensive work was pointed out 3 times on Sky Sports against United, people still ignore it in favour of the flair of Robben.

So, while Robben's performances this season may be pleasing on the eye, Duff has been more effective both offensively, and defensively this season. BTW, Mourinho said a few weeks ago that Duff Chelsea's best player, I think he would know best.

eirebhoy

On Lampard. He had an excellent game against United IMO. I'll always try and give a fair opinion on players. I did watch him for the whole game though and even when United had the ball he wasn't even thinking about getting the ball, he was standing waiting for someone else to get it. My two critisism's of Lampard are that (1) he doesn't close players down and (2) he could go missing for an entire half (ala Matt Holland). Other than that, he's one of the best players on the ball, his passing is sublime, but doesn't do enough of the rough work.

Compare O'Shea and Miller (20 minute cameo) for United today. Did anyone see the face on O'Shea when the ball got taken off him on 88th minutes and 3-0 up? I thought he was going to take the Boro's players head off. Miller though was trying to tackle a player without getting a crease on his shirt.

Paul Scholes isn't the best of tacklers but he wouldn't leave an opposing player 3 metres away without going to try and retrieve the ball. Sort that out and Lampard is in my good books. He actually got stuck in a bit at the start of the second half which was probably down to José instructions for every player.

edit - If anyone knows any links (*cough* torrent) of somewhere I can download matches I'll pick out clips of Lampard and upload them.

Jivin Turkey

Im not rating Robben ahead of Duff, I just think he played better in the game. He also did a lot of tracking back (which was also mentioned by the commentators), but I felt he was a bigger threat going forward despite Duffs goal.

As regards Lampard, he mightnt track back all the time, but thats not his job. He plays in a midfield three, him being the most offensive. Tracking back is Tiago's/Makalele's job.