I can't quite understand why United are able to tear it up in Champions League against the Italian champs, but when they play a team like Bolton, they can barely salvage a tie. It isn't really making sense to me. Is the style of soccer that different in the two leagues so that it completely changes not only the outcome, but the team's overall performance on the field? Some people would say that mid-week CL games might tire the team out for the weekend, but then how do they become instantly rested again when heading to Europe? I almost wish they'd tone it down some in CL and save some of that effort for the Premiership. If they played half as well in England as they do in Europe, they'd be at the top of the table, no question.
I look at the Champions League as the real prize. Winning the Premiership is nice, but coming it at 4th[?] place still gets you in to the CL.
First of all, keep in mind that Juve played horribly. All of United's goals were the result of defensive gaffes. Don't get me wrong, United played pretty well, but I have never seen Juve's defense that poor, especially at home. I wonder if some of United's CL success has to do with thier style. They used to lose CL games by continuing to press all out to get goals, thinking they could outscore anybody. It worked in the premiership, where most of the teams were scared of United's firepower, but against quality teams in the CL (Madrid, Munich, etc), it backfired. Now, if the get a lead in the CL, they are able to sit on it more easily, thanks to a change in mentality and the 4-5-1. In the EPL, sitting on the lead has, at times, backfired. Look at the recent draw against Man City as an example. Also, it's easier to get up for a game in Turin than a game in Bolton...
I think it's all about pace and aggression. The Premiership teams don't give you the time on the ball that you get in Europe. That's why Veron is so much less effective - he's always getting caught on the ball or rushed into inaccurate passes. The Utd midfield is made up of Beckham, Veron, Scholes, Giggs, Keane and Butt. The first four - the midfield often includes 3/4 of them - are all creative players, none have effective aggression and only Giggs has pace. Keane and Butt both have aggression but not pace and only one usually plays. Premiership teams, recent examples are Bolton and Man City, often out-muscle/pace Utd unless they're supremely motivated which is not always easy to do against these weaker teams particularly when there are European games close. Against Juventus they had muscle in midfield with Butt and Neville (similar to the midfield when they beat Arsenal in the league) and played a counter-attacking game that came off because of the pace of Giggs. But you can't play that way regularly in the Premiership because the counter-attacking game is only effective against teams that will commit themselves to attack. The weaker Premiership teams won't do that, particularly at Old Trafford. I think the Premiership teams have come to understand that, while you can't outplay Utd, you can out-power them. That's where Arsenal currently proves better than Utd - they not only play a quality football but they have pace and power as well.
You know, Arsenal have the same problem in reverse. Why can we beat a really good Premiership team 2-nil at home, and then only salvage 2 draws against an inferior CL side? The world may never know. Actually, I think that the "pace and aggression" thing does hold true. In the Premiership, Arsenal can get away with being the most boring team in the whole universe and pounding away at the other team, when you just can't do that against some of the other more aggressive CL sides. My 2 cents. Vive le AFC! OPArsenal PS- The "2-nil" thing wasn't intended as a cheap shot...