Champions League Final - United v Barca

Discussion in 'Association Football Discussion' started by Hybrid, May 9, 2009.

  1. Speirz DG Speirs

    That's the English philosophy right there.

    Head to anywhere in continental Europe and watch a back 3 or 5 play and it's a much different case.
     
  2. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge

    i dont think it was his one on one that was the problem so much as his positioning, he gave to much space most of the time and went to at the wrong times, the fact he doesnt have support for the one on ones is because he wasnt in the right place
     
  3. Magic AJ Parker

    I thought he was pretty poor in closing down blokes outside the box, Messi was shooting at will early on in the game. Still think he's a good defender but so overrated when people call him one of the best in the world.
     
  4. Hybrid A Kolar

    I raised that point with my friend today who's a massive Vidic hater. I think he's not overrated at all, but he is about as good as bin juice when it comes to one-on-one instances. Not only has he shown his ineptness at this kind of defending in Europe, it's also happened quite a few times in the Premier League this season as well.
     
  5. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Didn't notice that tbh... I saw him try and pick the team up... I though he was one of the only United players to actualy put effort in tbh.

    His only problem was he was trying to win the match single handidly.
     
  6. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Worked for Chelsea...
     
  7. Speirz DG Speirs

    That appeared to me to be more of a tactic than a habit. All 4 of United's defenders tended to stick back to the edge of the box and let Barcelona run at them. In the end it's not such a bad idea given that most of Barcelona's goals come from players worming their way into the box, rather than shots from outside. Those longer shots don't seem to be a big part of their philosophy, because they always think they can get the ball into a better position.
     
  8. Speirz DG Speirs

    They also had holding midfielders sitting much deeper to break up the passing play of Xavi and Iniesta. Combine that with speed out wide and up front and they had it sorted out better IMO.
     
  9. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Ye but I think we should have sat with Carrick much deeper.

    We really missed Fletcher tbh, and Hargreaves.
     
  10. Magic AJ Parker

    Carrick was woeful, although that's a bit harsh he was surrounded by even worse. Should cut out the long balls though, didn't hit one good all night. Should sign Alonso tbh.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  11. Speirz DG Speirs

    Hargreaves would've been near perfect for the role. Essien and Gatusso probably the only two I'd have in that same spot over him.

    Either Carrick sitting deeper or Scholes playing that role and Anderson/Park out of the side would've been better IMO. That said, Ferguson didn't know who was going to line-up for Barcelona, so it's much easier to judge in hindsight.
     
  12. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Ye we've missed Hargreaves (dispite the success of the season :p) this year.

    No it should have been Giggs, he's far to attacking for that role.

    Should have played Scholes and told him to hit Iniesta hard early on, cop a yellow and then sub him after an hour. Iniesta was struggling fitness wise, should have capitalised on it.

    Anderson should have plkayed, was just he had a shit game... like evryone really. We just feard Xavi and Iniesta and Barca's closing tactics.
     
  13. Hybrid A Kolar

    I actually think Barcelona's line-up was easier to predict that Manchester United's in the lead-up to the game.

    We knew Alves, Abidal and Marquez weren't going to be there, so we knew that it would be Toure and Pique at the centre of defence with Puyol at right-back, like the Arsenal game. We could also assume that Barcelona's best reserve leftback Sylvinho was going to come in for Abidal.

    Now, because we already knew that Toure was going to be in the central defence, we can assume he would've chosen Busquets as a defensive midfielder behind Xavi and Iniesta, because that's the role that Toure usually plays.

    The rest of the team effectively picks it self. I don't believe predicting or judging Barcelona's team was a problem for Ferguson. It was his own formational tactics which failed.
     
  14. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Completely agree... and I hate to say this but for once Fergies gamble didn't pay off... saying that I don't think United played the way he wanted them too...

    In the first 10 minutes it seemed United would close down and get in their faces, then after Iniesta glided past Anderson for the goal we shat ourselves and fell apart.
     
  15. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge

    I think they needed to take the game to barca a bit more, they really let barca have the running for 70 minutes out of the 90, but some sloppy ball control was also an issue, it wasnt all tactical, however i would have loved to have seen berbatov or tevez start with ronaldo on the wing and scholes and giggs in the middle, with rooney sitting in a forward role behind the striker (either one)

    Plus Iniesta just ruled us out on the pitch, it was an Iniesta master class tbh
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  16. Speirz DG Speirs

    Keita and Busquets were the big mysteries for mine. I wouldn't have been surprised at all to see Keita and Iniesta in the centre of midfield with Xavi just in behind.

    The way Henry, Eto'o and Messi set up in attack was surprising as well. Ferguson would've envisioned his back 4 having their hands full with those 3, but in the end Messi played far more centralised and slightly deeper than you could usually expect, so at any given time you could usually spot one of the right or left backs sitting in space marking nobody. Messi was essentially an old fashioned no.10, dropping out of the usual attacking trio and into a diamond midfield. The best way to combat that is with a DM of your own, which United decided to go without.
     
  17. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    That was predicted by Jamie Rednapp of all people before the game though so wouldn't have been a huge surprise IMO.

    We did need a holding player desperatly though, allowing us to go 3 for 2 against Iniesta and Xavi.
     
  18. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    No... you can't go gung ho against a team like Barcalona...

    Too much quality in the midfield and too much pace, they'd rip you up.

    We never expected to have the most possession anyway.
     
  19. stupersteve03 SJ Cambridge


    the point is against a possetion team like barca you need to make sure you make the most of your possession when you get it and pressure them to make mistakes, its not a matter of gung ho but just makeing sure you put pressure on passes, and on the player with the ball otherwise you give them the time to slip the pass in behind your line, or to run the angles
     
  20. Hybrid A Kolar

    Fair enough about Seydou Keita, but he hasn't started for Barcelona in a Champions League match in a fair while. I was adamant that Iniesta and Xavi would be paired together (common sense really) so that left Busquets to play the holding role.

    Although I rate Keita as the better player, Busquets is much more suited to the role asked from him for the game.

    On a side note, I thought that Yaya Toure's midfielding impulses would also prove a problematic for Barcelona's make-shift defence. I thought that Toure, because he is predominantly a defensive midfielder and plays like one, would push up heaps and try and go forward.

    Fortunately, that didn't happen though because it might've had disastrous consequences - especially in the 2nd half when Tevez was on.

    All in all though, I felt that the part of the make-shift defence that was tested (Pique/Toure), did an extremely good job and containing and closing down.

    I always thought Messi was too isolated in the way he's been traditionally played at Barcelona on the far right wing. I liked his role in this morning's match, I think we might see it more often.
     

Share This Page