Arsenal v Man U CL 2nd Leg May 05, 2009, 19:45

[General]

Djourou should've made it more difficult for Ronaldo in the third goal. He saw it all the way but for some funny reason just didn't have the pace to make the interception. He doesn't come across as a slouch but his acceleration is quite poor. It reminded me of how Robbie Keane left him for dead against Liverpool. I think Toure almost certainly would've made it.

So many things went wrong at the start -

1. Djourou and Toure playing like total strangers. No communication and you could've parked a bus between them from the start.
2. The midfield going AWOL. Ronaldo was literally picking up and the ball and waltzing through.
3. Robin on the wing also meant our attacking threat was limited on the left. It is no coincidence the we stabilised once Nasri switched there.

All in all, United saw the setup and just went for the kill. Regardless of Gibbs's slip, it was only a matter of time before they scored. The superiority came from the approach and not a massive gap in quality. The damage was quite simply done in the first leg with Wenger's ridiculous approach and unwillingness the change it when things weren't working. It gave United the needed belief to come to our backyard without fear. They did to us what we should've done to them at Old Trafford. It shows the huge contrast between both manager's approach. The funny thing is that we will probably go to Old Trafford and beat them in the league.

 

[Captain]

we were comfortably on top until Gibbs slipped though.

Very comfortably.

 

[asajoseph]

I have to admit that Barca had a lot more of the ball than we did but they were poor. The kept on playing it sideways and backwards.. I think Denilson would fit in well.

AW is blamed for thinkering to much but what if Chelski just got one pen? They would be through and would everybody jump on guardiola? He messed up badly: Iniesta upfront and Yaya in defence so none of his lines were like they just to be. He could have played Hleb, Bojan etc upfront.. but Barca get lucky..

You have to say that Barca got lucky, of course - though I think Chelsea had their fair share of fortune too, particularly with the sending off. And I don't think Barca played that well.

But they did cope in posession a lot better than we did, even if the final ball was often lacking (a problem we had sometimes even last season, when we were a much better side).

 

[asajoseph]

we were comfortably on top until Gibbs slipped though.

Very comfortably.

We were indeed.

Which makes it really disappointing that our heads went down so quickly. A comeback would always have been incredibly unlikely, but it wouldn't have been impossible.

 

[General]

AW is blamed for thinkering to much but what if Chelski just got one pen? They would be through and would everybody jump on guardiola? He messed up badly: Iniesta upfront and Yaya in defence so none of his lines were like they just to be. He could have played Hleb, Bojan etc upfront.. but Barca get lucky..

I don't know what you're talking about but Barca always lay 4-3-3.It was the best possible line up and unlike us, they don't go dilly dallying with formations in crucial games. Eto'o was the man upfront, flanked by Iniesta and Messi. Yaya was in defence because they had no one. Puyol was suspended and I think Marquez was injured (?). Why would they play Hleb when they need cutting edge. Bojan appeared on 85mins. Chelsea are a strong defensive force and there would've been no shame in losing to them At least Gaurdiola stayed true to his methods.

As for our game - I don't think we were comfortably on top. We had possession of the ball (which was natural at home) without knowing what to do with it. If anything United were the comfortable team as we barely caused them any problems or had any shot on target. We had only one fortuitous deflection which caught Van Der Saar out, to show for our efforts. Of course you never know what could've happened had Gibbs not slipped but United looked more assertive on the few occasions they had the ball in the opening minutes.

 

[ultradoc]

That is what champion teams are about. They may not create the whole 90 minutes, have a bad day at the field but still get the work done. It was a dominating chelsea team and barca just kept plugging in. One chance-Boom. So,nothing wrong or lucky about barca's performance the other night. Silly it was 10 men too.

If you wanna talk about luck, what about chelsea's goal. Far more luckier than iniesta's. It was such precision football each team not giving the other an inch all game, and when there was some inches given at the end you could see it going in like some mechanised prediction. That's how tight it was.

All hail Barca. Guardiol's tie on the other hand..

 

[FrankArsenal]

@ general: He may not have switched his formation but is was a bad call, he should have played: Xavi, Iniesta and Toure in midfield instead of changing every line. Barca went to trough because of a lot of luck.

@ captain: I agree and I think we we were on top. We played like I said on page 15 with Cesc, Nasri and Song in the middle. And Cesc didn't play more forward. Nasri and Cesc were on the same line and Nasri could shift to the left and and RvP upfront 4-5-1 >> 4-4-2. I thought it worked well and I think it can work, hope he tries it again.

@ Ultradoc: So Chelski had more luck? I hate them but I watched it again and they should have got at least 3 pens! Maybe Henry should have got one in the first match but then Chelski should have got even more... you can talk all about the Essien goal you like and Iniesta's goal being better but Barca were extremely lucky! And both goals weren't clear cut chances, I'd rather say it were opportunities.

It's a shame we gave up, but after Ronaldo scored I could understand..

 

[General]

Playing Robin on the wing was always a pointless exercise, similar to playing Diaby on the left wing.

@ general: He may not have switched his formation but is was a bad call, he should have played: Xavi, Iniesta and Touré in midfield instead of changing every line. Barca went to trough because of a lot of luck.

So who does he play at center back, if Toure has to play in midfield?

 

[hackajack]

All hail Barca. Guardiol's tie on the other hand..

Viler than a Chelsea tantrum that was.

 

[FrankArsenal]

Playing Robin on the wing was always a pointless exercise, similar to playing Diaby on the left wing.

@ general: He may not have switched his formation but is was a bad call, he should have played: Xavi, Iniesta and Touré in midfield instead of changing every line. Barca went to trough because of a lot of luck.

So who does he play at center back, if Touré has to play in midfield?

He could have switched Abidal to CB and let Sylvinho play at LB because his defensive line was already switched. I think Abidal is a better CB than Yaya and Yaya could have played in the normal midfield. He could also have played another defender like Caceres. Or he could have played Keita out of postion istead of Toure.

4-5-1 could work for us in the CL, it did before. If Wenger wants Nasri in CM that means someone else has to play LM... but it means we'll only have one striker. Because he won't drop Cesc (rightly so) and you can't play Cesc and Nasri without Song. I think playing 4-5-1 when defending and playing 4-4-2 while attacking can work.

 

[GaelForce22]

Have to say, Man U's third goal was a thing of beauty.

Goal of the season for me. Love that sort of football (as long as it's not being scored against us).

 

[TomasCR]

It was a nice goal but anything we wouldn´t have managed too. It wasn´t much difficult for them as there was almost nobody on our side and the play was desperately open Arsenal to score a goal. A bit too easy it to be a goal of the season for me.