Wasnt that City played better over 90 minutes (They have the better team on paper and United only needed a draw). Wasn' t that United didn't create many chances (City have a world class defense) The biggest surprise for me was that City were the first to most 50/50's and most loose balls. A couple of times United players were guilty of letting loose balls go and not chasing. IN short, City seemed to want it more. This might seem like a statement of the obvious, but I never thought I would see the day a Sir Alex Ferguson team didnt appear to want a game of this importance. Apart from the first 10 minutes your players looked terrified of City. At this point I would like to suggest that in my opinion, had Alex Ferguson been managing city's squad and just about anybody else managing United's squad this league would have been over a LONG time ago. But it does appear that United's 'experience' hasnt come to the fore for this year. All credit to City who (it would appear) are now deserving champions. And congratulations to Roberto Mancini if, as it would appear, he closes out the premier league. I only hope as a lover of football that Ferguson can stick around long enough to rebuild a team that can challenge again next year!
Exactly what i have been saying¬!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nice to hear a neutral say it and not a ****ing bitter cockney on here. 50-50's lost us the game, we didnt commit
The problem is who would you have picked instead of Giggs and Scholes? He had to pick 5 in midfield - city needed to win and united needed to draw. If hed played 4-4-2 and lost 3-0 everybody would be slaughtering him for going to attacking when he only needed a draw. Incidentally I thought Giggs was one of your better players in the first half hour or so... |Football is a great game when played in hindsight. Had United held on for a 0-0 everybody would have been calling it a tactical masterstroke.
But it worked pretty well for 45 minutes?! you lost because of a defensive lapse at a corner that had nothing to do with either of them. YOu didnt need to win!!!! Who knows what would have happened in the second half. When you needed to score one of them was replaced anyway!
I agree with what you are both saying BUT City were always going to win the midfield battle because they simply have better midfielders. A I said earlier, Ferguson had to put 5 in midfield or youd have been more badly overrun. The goal you conceded was (at least directly) nothing to do with your midfield. And in a game where a lot of the younger players would have deep down been more worried than theyd have openly admitted about playing against a team who had tonked them earlier in the season, having the reassuring presence of two players who have been there and done it would have helped. In short, I think its extremely unfair to blame defeat on your manager. As I said at the start, the players seemed to be shying out of 50/50's, not chasing loose balls and just didnt seem urgent enough for the last 15/20 minutes. Alex Ferguson has done one hell of a job running you neck and neck with city this year. Its an insult for some of your fans to be going through, game by game and picking out mistakes to castigate him for.
I understand what you are saying - but still maintain they were only mistakes in hindsight. Given the nature of the occasion, the fact that anybody could have told you City would be attacking for their lives, and the balance that the top of the league was poised in, I think he had no choice but to pack the midfield. It would have been suicide to go 4-4-2 away from home against that city team in a game you only needed a draw in. Still footbal is all about opinions - the fact is that the goal you lost from was nothing to do with the midfield. And as soon as the onus was on you to score he rang the changes. If the starting 11 had held out for 0-0 (and just ask barcelona how hard it can be to break down a defensive team) he would have been heralded as the hero who had conquered all yet again. Fine margins...
