posted Apr 13, 2007

Aaah,the familiar sound of hyperbole associated with a good Man u performance.I must have missed the presentation of the trophy at the end.

United were very good and Roma were hopeless,end of story.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

"what unlike utd with Ruud-v-n, carrick, rooney, ronaldo, evra, vidic !!!"

Are you suggesting those players, all bought by United and some for large figures of money, are examples of United buying their success?

I'd certainly hope not. Between those players you list there's hardly any trophies won at all.

United's money and success has been, largely, built from their success on the pitch and in marketting (coming mainly from their success on the pitch) through the 90s.

A success built massively on a youth academy pumping out some of the finest players (English or otherwise) the Premiership has ever seen.

Of course United have spent lots. But the vast majority of Chelsea's expendeture has been not over the last 10 years, but over the last 4.

And their rising success has been a direct result of that, not the other way around.

Anyway, to everyone else here stating "Why don't you mention my team beating -Insert unknown team here- in the -insert non Champion's Leage competition here-????"

The only one that's valid is the Arsenal 5-1 win. Which was away.

I'd agree that's comparible to united's win over Roma... Definitely.

Anyone thinking Liverpool's comback in the final signifies a better performance than United's win over Roma needs their head checking.

A more thrilling cup tie, yes. A more gutsy and miraculous showing of character? Yes.

But a finer performance??? How can you sat that when, for 45 minutes of the game, Liverpool were dominated?

United's win over Roma was not against a weak side, as some suggest. Roma did not play badly. I defy anyone to even suggest that any defence in the world could have coped with the 5 touch, 5 player goal that ended with Smith scoring.

It was simply a breath-taking performance.

The reason why I think it's a better performance than Arsenal's marvelous 5-1 victory, away from home and against one of the best teams in Europe?

Simple: Every United goal was a goal of the month contender, bar none.

If we didn't witness the greatest performance, we witnessed one of the very, very best.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

lol bless derby county! quality!!

for me the best games have been chelsea beating galatasaray under horrible conditions 5-0 and being applauded by the home fans.

beating barcelona 3-1 at home with vialli and co! and beating them 4-2 3 nil up after 20 minutes.

but some of boro's results in the Uefa cup last year were better games and not just a white wash and so one sided.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

comment by YdissDC

posted 56 Minutes Ago

"what unlike utd with Ruud-v-n, carrick, rooney, ronaldo, evra, vidic !!!"

Are you suggesting those players, all bought by United and some for large figures of money, are examples of United buying their success?

I'd certainly hope not. Between those players you list there's hardly any trophies won at all.

-------

so are you saying it's ok to criticise chelsea for buying success, but man utd haven't because they spent money on ruud, carrick, rooney, ferdinand, evra, vidic, kleberson, djemba, heinze... and have not won many trophies...?

which to me proves a point that they tried to buy success and failed...

chelsea bought players and won !

the difference is the fact Jose Mourinho and Ranieiri and Vialli all got more from the players they had to work from.
and before the roman came along we were finishing 4th, 3rd, 2nd in the league, being in the champions league and doing well in cups too. Mourinho made the difference to success not the money as clearly money doesn't win the title the team does.

Chelsea have had to pay over the odds for some ordinary players... but Jose has got the best out of them, look how well drogba and essien have done this year compared to last. they actually look value for money now.

unlike... djemba, kleberson, veron, heskey, cisse, kronkamp, etc etc

liverpool and utd have both spent lots and lots of millions....

man utd had success in the 90's based on a 'freak' group of players all coming from the youth system at the same time. (freak ment in a shocking way not a bad way)

but they had to make expensive purchases which many have backfired. that was my point

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

and therefore any criticism of chelsea for buying success is unjust, look at milan's and real madrid. £££ all the time but little success.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

aye you're right mate i just hate Man U and Ronaldo. Ronaldo is a crying baby who can't stand it if the call doesn't go his way. aye i hope the Blues can take the prem, there's only 6 games left so we'll see. if we win all the rest of our matches and beat Man U than we should have a chance. but since we're 3 points behind than we'd be level on points if they lost to us. so i guess we've got to hope they lose to someone else too because they've scored more goals and would win on differencial. Come on the Blues! so do you think the Pool will knock us out of the Champoins league? I think if we play like Chelsea than we should win. but itf sucks they have the advantage of playing home the second leg so if they go down the first leg they could come back the second. but we've got some injured players back like Essien, Jole Cole, and Paulo Ferreira so we're fresh. it's going to be an intense match and we've got to play defence. Gerrard and Xavi are gonna be launching balls up the middle and Riise has a rocket of a shot. but Petr Cech is a good keeper so i'm not to worried about it. AC Milan and Man Utd. will be a good match as well. i dont like neither sqauds but i'd rather have AC win me being a Chelsea supporter.

cheers

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2007

comment by sycostill
posted 4 Hours Ago
and therefore any criticism of chelsea for buying success is unjust, look at milan's and real madrid. £££ all the time but little success.


Little success which real madrid or milan are you talking about?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 16, 2007

that's what a typical non-Chelsea reporter will say. we have money so we might as well buy good players, why would be buy players who can't preform? and that's shown to make sense hence us having so many injuries this season but still holding up with our subs. last season Drogba was in Kalou's situation, he was a sub for Gudjonssen and Crespo. so ofcoarse he's doing better this year because he starts now. and we do play Kalou at the appropriate times when we bring him in for Shevchenko into the second half.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2007

Yes a team that will reach the last 16 of some tournament and collapse under the technique-ridden pressure of a 12 yard penalty shoot out...........I was talking about a team of players that are "truly" world class...You're not fooled by the tabloids are you?... I'd very much doubt they'll be putting a statue up outside Wembley to any of "that" lot.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2007

AC Milan... More like "There we went" Tee-hee.

add comment | complain about this comment