This was not the greatest performance. I felt Liverpool controlled play early, & controlled it late. Heskey really should've scored. Oh well. In a game called by a different referee, it would have been a penalty. Also Diouf would've have been sent off. But Poll was calling very little & both fit into how he was calling the match. At the end of the day, 3 points from Anfield & 3 straight league wins over the Pool.
I was goimg to post the Fab like balls, but got distracted Uniteds distribution was not great at times. United seemed to lose their head. Defenders didnt help Howard on ocassion, by playing themselves into trouble.
damn. i was looking at the ?gamecast thing on soccernet and heskey was pretty close, he should have scored from that spot. i feel sorry for him. 2 goals to The wizard anyways. and we win.
Three points from Anfield has got to be good at any time for Utd - this fixture has almost become a Cup Final for Liverpool. Alex's tactics made a lot of sense - a very defensive approach to the first half with three defensive midfielders (Neville, Keane and Fortune) in front of the back four and Giggs clearly instructed to neutralise Kewell. Although Liverpool had 61% of the possession in that half, they never remotely looked like scoring. In the second half Giggs was freed up to play a more attacking game - resulting in two goals for him and one for Kewell. I'll settle for that The twin strike force of RvN and Forlan again proved to be very ineffective - I don't recall a single meaningful pass between the two in the whole game. In the full 90 minutes RvN just had a couple of half chances and Forlan nothing at all. Scholes is missed dreadfully!
I thought it was a very unimpressive game. Man Utd didnt' play well, it wouldn't have been suprising if we walked away with a draw. I was hoping Forlan would continue on his hot streak,after all he did score 2 goals against Liverpool last December. But, maybe the Forlan/RVN strike partnership won't work out...which is too bad. I would've like to have seen Forlan bloom this season, and turn into a great attacker....I can't wait for Solksjaer to return.. and what was with Howards clearances? He had two that seemed more like passes to the other team. But still, he made a couple of nice, necessary stops.
The boys seemed to play uninspired in the 1st half. Fortunately, 'pool were not able to do much even if they had better possession. I thought Rio didn't play well. There were two clear chances for 'pool in the 2nd half, and in both instances, I thought Rio had poor coverage. Giggs goals were a blessing. A cross to Ruud found the back of the net. And thank goodness to Dudek for the 2nd goal. In the end, all that really matters is the three points.
What was unimpressive about it? The 1st half, Utd did exactly what they wanted. In fact, I bet it went precisely according to SAF's plan. Feel free to argue about the strategy if you want, but Utd clearly wanted to take the emotional thrust out of the game, keep things slow, and go into half-time with a clean sheet. I'm sure a goal on the break would have made them happy - but the objective of not letting Liverpool have a meaningful chances was accomplished. In the second half, they played extremely well for about 30 minutes. They created chances, menaced Pool, and immediately after scoring the 2nd goal, knocked the ball around easily. Then Liverpool's goal came out of nothing, and Utd collapsed. Playing very well for 75 minutes and very poorly for 15 minutes might not be precisely ideal, but I wouldn't say they wre poor overall at all.
Well, it was a tight game all the way. Liverpool obviously played like they needed it, and this loss effectively ends their title hopes. I wasn't as impressed with the backline. I think that sometimes Rio tries to be creative, rather than just clearing the ball out of danger. The defense must have passed the ball back to Howard about a dozen times, and on a couple of occasions he seemed to receive it unexpectedly. I think he needs to sit down and talk with his defenders about when it is proper to make a pass to him, and when they should just get rid of it. It wasn't the best game I've seen, but Giggs came up with a couple of chances and put them away. Ruud and Forlan were largely ineffective, but I think that is due more to the Liverpool defense, which played tight for the majority of the game. A few minutes before the first goal, I was thinking about how much we were missing Scholes, who could have really made something out of nothing. Luckily Giggs took care of that. Not much else to comment on. A couple of close calls on either side that could have turned the game. And Emile Heskey still sucks, I hope that Sven-Goran Eriksson reconsiders including him as the top striker for England. Other than that, a mostly solid game that was free-flowing in the second half. Anytime you come out of Anfield with three points, you should consider yourself to have played a good game. Time to cheer on our boys who will make appearances for their respective national teams.
I'm not buying that Ruud and Forlan were largely ineffective, especially as concerns Diego. They were denied service but both had a hand in both of the goals. Let's face it, the first goal isn't scored if not for both Ruud and Diego making runs across the front of goal (although they perhaps could have staggered their runs a little better to ensure that they weren't in the same place as the ball flashed across goal -- you can actually see Ruud's hand hit Diego in the face as they both stretch for the cross). On the 2nd, it was Diego feeding Ruud, who was making a great run that in turn left Giggs alone at the back post. There were other occasions on which Diego was playing good balls (the one where Traore made a last ditch recovery to knock the cross away from Ruud comes to mind first). He also was working extremely hard all over the field and never seemed to tire. I'd bet Ferguson would say that even though they didn't score, his strikers certainly created problems and had a big hand in the victory.
precisely according to SAF's plan?? I doubt that considering he admitted that Liverpool were the better side in the 1st half, and that Man Utd seemed to lack confidence in the 1st half. And as I recall, Liverpool had about 3 good chances for a goal in the 1st half. They 0wn3d us in possesion, but thankfully they did lack the conviction to actually score a goal. so I thought the 1st half was very boring. I didn't enjoy watching Man U play, because they weren't playing well. The 2nd half was better, but not by much. They just weren't flowing as a team, in my opinion. The only truly exciting part of the game for me was the last 10 minutes, which were scary. but I am glad we got the 3 points , and I am gladd Giggs has two more goals to his name
I think we are still good enough to grind out results over top clubs. It's just that without Scholes providing that extra spark of creativity, we don't look as graceful doing it.
Liverpool didnt look like scoring in first half, but nether did United. I would have played Ronaldo and Giggs. Ronaldo because of the crosses etc. Take the Gers game for example. But I dont suppose he can do it every game at the moment. Giggs and Ronaldo would have given a better balance, especially without Scholes. But we won. Ruud & Forlan didnt really click. Giggs was lucky and we won.
Did you all hear about the sign United supporters had? "Liverpool 30 miles from greatness". That is going to be funny for a long, long time.
The most important thing! It may not have been pretty, but pretty dont win championships. The best we can do is to learn from what happened in the game...
3 good chances on goal? They didn't have a one. They only had 2 hard shots on goal, and it would have been embarrassing if Howard had let one in. And one of those only came as a result of a really, really nice long shot by Kewell (but Howard was waiting for it). Liverpool would have been very, very lucky to have scored in the 1st half. As for looking better... I think you're confusing "enjoyed possession" with "did anything worth while." Neither side did a damned thing offensively in the 1st half - which is what Man Utd, not Liverpool, would have wanted in that situation. The defense was marvelous, and Keane and Neville disrupted everything in the midfield. The strategy makes sense. Liverpool had played a game on Thursday, but were riding the emotional high of a derby game at home. Let them come at you, do some running, sit back, defend. Let them tire themselves, bore the crowd, then beat them in the 2nd half. A sound strategy that worked well.
I agree that your strategy does make sense, but I just don't think that was what SAF had in mind. and I never said Liverpool did anything worthwhile with their posession. I'm just saying that Liverpool played better than us in the 1st half, even fergie admitted that. and I just thought the game was uninspired, and not very exciting. But I am happy with the result.
A young Manc named Jonesy was visiting his brother in Liverpool and they went out to a pub together, and during the conversation a young woman heard Jonesy bragging that he could have sex three times a night. After the last song by the band was over, Cilla, the young girl, says, "Jonesy, I kinda fancy you, if I'm not being too forward, let's go back to my place and have rampant sex." So they go back to her place and have great sex. Afterwards, Jonesy says, "If you think that was good, let me sleep for a half hour, and we can have even better sex. But while I'm sleeping, hold my testicles in your left hand and my penis in your right hand." Cilla looks a bit perplexed, but says, "Okay." He sleeps for half an hour, awakens, and they have even better sex. Then Jonesy says, "Cilla, that was wonderful. But if you let me sleep for an hour, we can have the best sex yet. But again, hold my testicles in your left hand, and my penis in your right hand." Cilla once again says, "Great Jonesy, but tell me, does my holding your testicles in my left hand and your penis in my right stimulate you while you're sleeping?" Jonesy replies, "No, but the last time I slept with a Scouser, she stole my wallet!"
Oh now, c'mon... First of all, I'm not here to troll. You guys won, and I won't take a single thing away from that. But to say that it was a "strategy" to let us run rampant with possesion and passing while you guys struggled to complete more than two or three passes that went anywhere (the ManU fans at the pub were silent almost the entire first half, except for a few groans), is really more arrogant than any anti-ManU biased fan would normally peg you guys with. It was a good match...well played by both teams, albeit at different times.
You are right... It could not have been planned to play poorly in the first half. However, ManU clearly did not press forward the way they usually do and Keane, and Giggs looked like different players in the second half going forward and creating chances. You may say fine, then sit back and play Defense but dont give the ball away. It is a helluva lot easier to do that after you have played for a half or so and have a lead than to do so while the scores are level and you have not gotten into a groove yet. When teams are instructed to play conservatively it rarely ever results positively, you cannot make short simple passes if everyone is crowded into your half, this is what happens when players don't make enough attacking runs. Let me tell u a story. I play for Lincoln University's team and we went to a game and got there late, but the team agreed to play us instead of take the forfeit. We proceeded to score 3 goals in the first 15 minutes and out of respect for the other team our coach told us to ease up off the gas. They did not score, thanks to some great goalkeeping but they had more of the ball and we could not make passes we usually could, or dribble defenders we usually could because there was little room, and no one making runs and creating space. Im not saying our team is the same as ManU but players cannot always produce when told specifically not to attack.
I would buy this, if there had been more created on Liverpool's part. Or if there had been much attempt to get forward by Keane. I'm not sure how much you watch of Man Utd - but one of the biggest tests to see if they're trying to attack is whether Keane's getting forward or not. If he's protecting the back 4 - then Man Utd are just trying to not concede goals or kill the game. If he's going forward... well, they're trying to score. He sat back in the 1st half and went forward in the 2nd half. It's bias to assume your team is playing better, when the other team has every reason to play defensively, and all your "attacking play" doesn't really create a single decent chance. Your two half-chances came after pressuring a defensive throw-in... and off of a really nice Kewell long-shot. Does it sound like your offense was operating well? Even it was... then our defense was operating superbly. Can't have it both ways .
Far from being arrogant it shows considerable respect for the Liverpool team. Utd took the field with a back four and 3 defensive midfielders across the field in front of these and Giggs was clearly instructed to stay with Kewell and keep him quiet. This was done knowing/expecting that your lads would be full of commitment and the crowd would be shrieking their support. They needed to blunt the commitment and silence the crowd. They did that effectively in the first half. But you don't win matches that way - Utd never looked like scoring in the first half - and you don't win Premierships if you don't win matches. So, in the second half with the commitment and crowd tamed somewhat, they modified their tactics with Giggs given a freer more attacking role and Keane moving forward. Giggs scored twice, Kewell once, and Heskey didn't A draw would not have been an unreasonable score and, as a number of posts have said here, we're happy with the win. We're reasonable guys, really