It Takes More Than A Goal

A snaphot of the game in general

According to most, this game was decided three weeks ago. Man United were imperious against Arsenal, Barcelona were impotent (and extremely fortunate) against Chelsea. I did think United with triumph, but not because of anything that happened in the semi-finals. People don't seem to understand that once United got that first, lucky goal against Arsenal the Gunners were a shambles, or "shoddy" to use Ferguson's word of the week. It may sound like I'm taking away from United's performance, and indeed I am. They haven't looked that good all year, and so the game against Arsenal must be seen as an aberration. Consider their poor record against big-four opposition - 5 points from a possible 18. People talked about Barcelona struggling against English opposition, but the reality of this season is that United have struggled against English teams too - the good ones at least.

Then there's Barcelona - flat-track bullies, big game bottlers, overrated. People were making sweeping judgments on them based on two games, one of which they could have one 2-0. Hopefully hindsight has made people realise that Chelsea were impeccable in implementing their game plan against Barcelona. That's not to excuse the Catalans, but one must appreciate the difficulty of playing against a well-drilled, hard-working outfit content to sit back and hit on the counter.

Unfortunately, much of what passed for pre-match analysis was a glance at United's semi-final, a glance at Barcelona's, and then the seemingly obvious conclusion that Man Utd would trounce them. Incidentally, I wonder what the jingoistic Sunday Supplement guest is thinking now.

To say the game hinged on the 10th minute goal would not be out of order, though of course it takes much more than a goal to completely dominate a game. We aren't to know how things would have panned out had United took the lead, nor are we to know what would have happened had Cesc Fabregas's deflected shot crept in when Arsenal were on the front foot against United three weeks ago. To speculate about such things is pointless really. The bottom line is that United only needed a goal to draw level. Someone said "the game was over" once Barcelona scored. It did look that way at times, but saying that only takes away from Barcelona's ability to make a tight game look like a walk in the park. There were still 80 minutes of football to play, but from that point on only one team really played it.

It wasn't a vintage Barcelona performance, but under the circumstances it was extremely good. The back four did look a little shaky at times, but as always the midfield duo of Xavi and Iniesta played their part in making sure United could never really get at them. It doesn't get any better in football than those two. Xavi has always been a very good player, but in the last year he has just exploded, what with Spain's triumph and a wonderful season with Barcelona. Iniesta is someone I've known since my Championship Manager days. I bought him from Barcelona as a 16/17 year old kid, and while his ratings were average he performances were brilliant. Since then I've always had a soft spot for him, and so I've almost felt like a proud father watching rise up through the ranks, and it was quite startling -- yet wholly justified -- to see him crowned last night by Wayne Rooney as the best in the world (I wonder how Ronaldo will feel about that statement by the way). Iniesta really is that good. No longer can he be dubbed underrated. He may be an anti-galactico, he may be bad for the media, he may be the whitest person in the world, but he is also one of the best players in the world. The best? Let's just say he would be a shoe-in for my World XI.

Another certainty would be Lionel Messi. The Argentine wasn't at his best, but it was he who aided Xavi and Iniesta in weaving their magic, and this was the biggest difference between the semi-final and the final. Unlike Chelsea, United couldn't handle Messi in the centre. This was a simple yet astute piece of tactical nous from Guardiola, who must have watched Liverpool beat United 4-1 with Gerrard in a similar position. Messi found space time and again, with neither Ferdinand nor the United midfield quite sure who's job it was to pick him up. It was certainly Ferdinand's job when Xavi foated that inch-perfect cross into the box, leaving Messi to score his first goal against English opposition. Ironically, he scored it with the part of his body that was adjudged to be the decisive factor for Ronaldo's superiority to Messi. Of course I'm not now saying that Messi is as good as Ronaldo in the air, but it felt sweet to see Messi answer his critics in such fashion - a stunning headed goal against English opposition to cap a fine display.

In fairness to Ronaldo, he was easily United's most threatening player. He held the ball up well, and of course his shots were always cause for concern. But as the game wore on and United became a shambles he was left without a defining role, and suffered as a result of overcrowding in Barcelona's half. Ferguson must take some of the balme for this. For starters, United's problems were in midfield. Carrick, Giggs and Anderson were unable to stamp any kind of authority on the game. You can't wave a magic wand and turn them into great players, but I think the most sensible thing to do at half time would have been to replace Giggs with Scholes. Instead, Fergie replaced Anderson with Tevez, leaving Giggs and Carrick to marshall Xavi and Iniesta. Read that sentence again and see if that's not as dreadful a decision as taking of Riquelme at 1-0 up/failing to bring an 18 year old Messi off the bench. Bringing on Berbatov only made matters worse, but in fariness to Ferguson he didn't really have a choice. All of this played into Barcelona's hands, because once they got the ball to either Iniesta or Xavi (those two again) they could do whatever they wanted with it. It's rare you see a Manchester United team go out with such a whimper, yet even with arguably four strikers on the pitch they couldn't muster up one of those onsloughts they are rightfully famous for. Ferguson addressed the symptoms -- they were losing badly and needed a goal -- but he didn't address the cause -- they just couldn't get hold of/keep the ball.

Some slight changes could have been made to help in this department (and no doubt United missed the industry of Flecther and the bite of Hargreaves), but for me the rather harsh reality is that this Manchester United midfield is just not good enough; not when it comes to this level of football. They're good enough to take three points against the bottom 10 Premier League clubs, but they have failed to convince me over the course of the season. Changes will need to be made. For me, that means Carrick out, Anderson out, Giggs retired. Any suggestions as to who they can bring in?

For Barcelona, this has been a season to savour. I have watched most of their games and so it feels like I have been a participant in this historic season. I will probably never watch as many games of football in one year for the remainder of my life, but I probably couldn't have picked a better time to peak. The question is, can they push on from here? The shocking/mouth-watering truth is that there are numerous positions where they can improve, but the undeniable truth is that in Messi, Iniesta and Xavi they have 3 of the top 5 players in world football, and as long as their alive Barcelona will be a force to be reckoned with.

Right and Wrong

Some of the things I predicted happened, some of them didn't. Here is what I got right:

Xavi and Iniesta ran rings around the United midfield.

Carrick wasn't up to much.

Giggs was an unnecessary luxury. Or just plain unnecessary.

It sounds a bit churlish, but apart from his goal Eto'o was poor in possession.

Vidic was culpable for a goal.

Messi, while not at his best, was influential enough to rubbish any short-sighted claims of big-game bottledom.


Here's some of what I got wrong:

O'Shea was arguably United's best player on the night.

Rooney was dreadful.

Anderson didn't score, but that of course was the least of his woes.

Puyol was rarely beaten.

Busquets did what he had to do admirably.

Park was irrelevant, but try telling that to the Asian community who just witnessed their first representative in a Champions League final. One wonders if Ferguson now wishes he made the second hardest decision of his life tonight - dropping Ji Sung Park again.


I haven't fully processed this game (it was quite a tactically complicated game), but suffice to say that Andres Iniesta is the greatest player in the history of world football. Seriously though, isn't he just something else? Anderson is no slouch, yet Iniesta just breezed by him on a numer of occasions. I'll try and form a less hyperbolic summary of events tomorrow, but in the spirit of hyperbole here is a question to ponder: Is this the worst Man Utd midfield in the last 15 years? I said at the start of the season that I didn't fancy them, and in most of the big games this season my doubts have been justified. If I'm right, then what needs to happen?

Rather Pointless

The general consensus in the media is that we're in for a cracking final tomorrow night. We might well be, but honestly, I can't predict what is going to happen tomorrow, which is why I have refrained from writing about a match I simply cannot wait for. Much of my confusion rests in the fact that Barcelona's starting XI remains somewhat of a mystery. Will Henry and/or Iniesta start? Who will be the left-back? These are big questions, and Pep has been very clever in keeping his hand close to his chest. Part of the reason Chelsea did so well against Barcelona was because they knew exactly who they were facing, and could formulate a game plan in advance. Of course the Man Utd team is not easy to predict either, but I have a feeling that it will be the same line-up that defeated Arsenal at the Emirates. Assuming this, and assuming the fitness of Henry and Iniesta, here is a rundown of the players I think will be involved and some quick, rather pointless comments on their potential influence:

Barcelona

Valdes - The keeper seen as a mistake waiting to happen was flawless in the semi-finals, but even if he went 100 games without conceding a goal there would still be question marks over his ability to pluck balls out of the air...and rightly so. I can see Cristiano Ronaldo's freekicks giving him some major headaches, so Barcelona must do their best to commit fouls as far away from the penalty area as possible if they are to keep Valdes from looking quite the fool.

Puyol - Up until recently, I thought his first name was Carlos. It's actually Carles. Anyway, he's got a big heart etc etc, and he is likely to make ay least one unbelievable tackle during the game, but he is also likely to be beaten by Rooney with ease. He won't give as many fouls away as Alves, and he won't give Rooney as much space as Alves would have, but -- and maybe it's simply the long, curly hair -- I just do not trust the man.

Toure - A great defensive midfielder (though aren't they all?), and so his likely shift to the back four is a blow to Barcelona. A fine player who can do a job, but I can see him being troubled by the movement of Ronaldo, Rooney, Park et al. Barcelona's hope is that he won't have much defending to do.

Pique - Was actually quite impressed with the former United reserve against Chelsea, but I can only assume he will be more severely tested this time around (or at least tested in a way less compatible with his own attributes). Capable of producing the goods, but the occasion might just get to him what hime being young and playing against a former club and all. Also, his lack of pace could well be exposed by the directness of Ronaldo.

Sylvinho - May not start, but if he does he will simply stay back and let others roam forward. Not a bad defender, and certainly not significantly worse than Abidal, but his legs might not be up for such a high intensity match.

Busquets - Has done quite well in his first season, but his inexperience means that it is hard to know how he will cope with a game of this magnitude. Usually keeps things simple and has a good aerial presence when it comes to defending corners, but Barcelona need someone more forceful than him if they are to keep United at bay. Unfortunately that person will be their central defender, so to Busquets they must look. Hardly ideal.

Xavi - Was disappointed with him in the second leg against Chelsea. His passing was off, and so while he saw a lot of the ball he didn't really cut Chelsea open. 20 assists in La Liga suggests that he is more than capable of finding the killer pass, and so much of the burden of creativity will rest on his shoulders. He's a better player than those he will be up against, and has played at this level many times before so I fancy him to do his part for the Catalan cause. Especially if he is paired with his partner in crime...

Iniesta - A fabulous player. I predicted (amongst a host of false teaching) that Iniesta would be Barcelona's most important player against Chelsea, and the 93rd minute in the second leg proved me right. If he is fit, then Barcelona's chances of victory will be boosted significantly. He will have no trouble in being man-marked, and his ball retention will help take the pressure off of Barcelona's dodgey back four. He's also good for winning free-kicks outside the box, and perhaps even a penalty. I really hope he is fit. The final will be an inferior spectacle without him.

Messi - Has yet to score against English opposition. His big game temperment has been called into question (rather harshly if you ask me) but he has the chance to make amends for a subdued semi-final by lighting up world football on its biggest stage. Will be tightly marked no doubt, but I have a feeling that Messi will come out of the shell that he seemed to be in against Chelsea. A special talent, and to repeat Dunphy's phrase, if you don't get Messi then you don't get football.

Henry - May not be fit enough to start, but if he is then John O'Shea will find it difficult to suppress the Frenchman. However, will Henry be the difference maker? You could argue that he cost Arsenal the Champions League final in 2006, missing as he did a gilt-edged chance in the second half to make it 2-0. Will such profligacy resurface? He seems to have refound his old form, but I still have my doubts about him. That said, he was good against Chelsea, and he has (I think) a formidable history when it comes to games against United. In other words, I have no idea with regards the possible extent of Henry's influence. Next...

Eto'o - There's not much more I can say about Sammy. Against a good defence he is a liability. United have a good defence, ergo...

Manchester United

Van der Saar - Prone to silly errors once in a while, and since he hasn't committed one in a few games tonight could be the night. It's hard to know who the good goalkeepers are in world football these days, but I guess the Dutchman is somewhere close to the top, thanks in no small part to the players sitting in front of him.

O'Shea - Sir has declared that John O'Shea has earned his place at right back, and it's hard to disagree. Along with Flecther he has been United's most improved player this season, and he now has a chance to make the position his own by putting in a good shift against probably Henry, but perhaps Iniesta, or even Messi (how about it? Messi on the left wing?). He will struggle for pace against any of those three, and of all the United defenders it is O'Shea that will be singled out as the weak link in the chain. Wes Brown was in a similar position last season, and put on an incredible display alongside Rio at centre-half? Will O'Shea repeat the trick? Perhaps, but if I were a Barcelona player then I would be concentrating all of the attacks down the Manchester United right hand side. It sounds harsh given the season John O'Shea has enjoyed, but it's hard to argue with the logic.

Ferdinand - The perfect partner for the more robust Vidic. How he will fair after injury is unclear, but if fully fit he will have the necessary pace to deal with Eto'o's threat, and he will also be crucial in aiding the slower O'Shea when he is inevitably beaten by Henry/Iniesta. Ferdinand, along with Brown, was immense in last season's encounter with Barcelona, and I don't expect anything different in the final.

Vidic - The perfect partner for the more refined Ferdinand. The Serb will clear up any of the aerial "threat" that Barcelona pose, but if there is to be a way through for Barcelona I think Vidic could be the culprit. Torres made him look foolish a couple of months ago, and he appears to struggle against pacey dribblers (see Kaka in 2007, although with that said, who doesn't struggle against players of Kaka's calibre?). I'm by no means suggesting United's player of the season is a liability, but if someone like, say, Messi can upset him early on then Barcelona may find more joy down the centre than one might expect.

Evra - The more he says, the less I like him. To say he kept Messi quiet a year ago is untrue, but he is a fullback who I think is as up for the challenge as anyone else. The problem with Evra is that he tends to drift out of position easily. He did so in the opening minutes of last year's semi-final second leg, and it took a cheeky Paul Scholes 'tackle' to stop Messi from getting into the United box. I do think that Messi will only occupy him for a brief period of time before the Argentine is pushed into the centre and the ineffectual Eto'o is shoved out wide. This I think will be Barcelona's best chance of exploiting United's biggest weakness - central midfield.

Carrick - He was given a chasing by Xavi and Iniesta for England in February, and I see absolutely no reason why there won't be a repeat. Carrick has his qualities, but at this level I just don't think he's good enough. He needs the dynamism of Fletcher (there's two words I never though I'd see together - Flecther and dynamism) to make up for his languid style, and so without that I think Carrick will struggle.

Giggs - I haven't seen enough of Giggs this season to say anything meaninful about him -- although that didn't stop his fellow players from nominating him as player of the season -- but from the little I've seen I would be quite happy to see him start if I were a Barcelona fan...which I am (at least for this game). Giggs is certainly more creative than Flecther, but honestly, against Barcelona you don't need anyone creative. Their defence can be penetrated rather easily, therefore what you need is players who can win you the ball back and hoof it in the general direction of Ronaldo/Rooney. I think that Giggs might just be an unnecceassy luxury, so I would be more inclined to stick Park in the centre and Tevez out wide.

Anderson - If you remember, I said at the start of the season that I don't see what all the fuss over Anderson is about. I think he's a decent player of course, but it is fair to say that his season he has been a tad underwhelming. Still, he is the type of player required for this game - someone who can win the ball back and hoof it in Ronaldo's direction. You know what - I'm going to do one of those stupid predictions where if you get it right you proclaim yourself a genius and if you get it wrong you never mention it again. Anderson to score his first goal in a United shirt.

Park - If God does indeed love a trier, then Ji Sung Park must be his favourite person in the world. You can't fault the Korean for effort, and he has a knack for getting on the end of things to. His persistent hounding will be key to the United cause, and I wouldn't be surprised if he popped up with a goal. Don't get me wrong - I think Park is an average footballer, but he's just the kind of average footballer that more often than not repays Fergie's trust.

Rooney - I'm a fan of the one they call Roo. If Roo don't like Roo then I think Roo are Roopid. Roo will Roo the day Roo ever said anything cRool about Roo. Roo's the man. He is Roo-nited's best player in my Roo-pinion, and as I Roo-minate this final I think Roo will be king of Roo-me.

Ronaldo - I don't know how to tell you this, but I'm actually not Ronaldo's biggest fan. Still, his is a lethal threat, and against a shambolic Barca defense I would expect him to flourish. As an aside, am I right in saying he has never scored against Spanish opposition? It's been made known all about the place that Messi has yet to score against English opposition, but I have an incling that CR7 is yet to score against any Spaniards. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing, which is why the Messi statistic is nonsense too.


So in a nutshell, I'm expecting performances from precisely none of the Barcelona defence, whereas I agree with the masses in saying that United will be quite comfortable at the back. I expect Barcelona's midfield to run rings around that of United, but I'm not confident the strikers (specifically Eto'o and Henry) will capitalise on the ample possession. United won't enjoy prolonged possession, but I can almost guarantee they will look more threatening than Barcelona. So in other words, this will be exactly like Barca against Chelsea. And yet I don't see it being that way. Why? In a word, Messi. I can only see him being much more influential in the final, and while I don't think Barcelona will win, I think his presence alone makes me slightly less confident in a United triumph. Against Arsenal I was about 95% sure United would win. Right now I'm about 65-70% confident. I don't expect a wild, open game, but I do expect a game of the highest quality. I just hope Barcelona don't crumble at the back and turn it into a joke, but perhaps that's what needs to happen if they are to push on from this year's success and really concentrate on getting things in order defensively.

The Head Can Be Used For Other Purposes

I'm not going to get embroiled in yet another Messi v Ronaldo debate, but...

The Sunday Supplement on Sky Sports has a journalist arguing that Ronaldo is the better player, and one of the reasons he gives is that Ronaldo is taller, and is therefore better at heading the ball. I guess that puts Ronaldo ahead of Maradona and Zidane too, since he's better at heading the ball than either of those two were. What a silly argument. Surely footballers shouldn't be judged purely (or even primarily) on physique. I mean that's what makes the game beautiful - the fact that the small guys can compete with and outclass the big guys. Players like Andres Iniesta and Paul Scholes can be considered great because they are thinking players who can read the game better than most.

Eamon Dunphy said that if you don't get Messi then you don't get football. My argument for thinking Messi to be "better" than Ronaldo is simply that he embodies much more of what football is about than Ronaldo. Ronaldo has the power, the height, the absolutely frightening shot. Messi has the close control, the dribbling skills, the deft touch, the incisive passing. The ball and Messi are one. His skills are shown with it at his feet. For Ronaldo, his skill is shown when the ball has left his foot and thundered into the net from impossible distances. At this point it becomes a thing of preference, but what I don't understand is the suddden shift that has taken place in football. It used to be that the ball players were the most admired - Zidane, Bergkamp, (Brazilian) Ronaldo - but now there are many who place the emphasis on being some kind of footballing behemoth a la Cristiano Ronaldo; someone who can "terrorise" defences by being a sort of dormant threat than can just explode in an instand and do something out of nothing. I appreciate such a potent weapon of course, but best in the world? Really?

My great disappoint with the game today is that if Zinedine Zidane -- the most naturally gifted footballer of the past 20 years -- were in his prime today, he probably wouldn't be considered the best player since he doesn't score enough goals or "isn't as good with his head as Ronaldo is". What the Sunday Supplement journalist failed to mention is that the head can be used for other purposes in football - purposes far exceeding the one employed by Ronaldo. I don't think Messi is on the same level as Zidane when it comes to the mental aspects of football (and I don't believe he will ever be), but he is far closer to that level than Ronaldo is. So is Ronaldo's teammate Wayne Rooney. The question then becomes do you prefer/place more value on footballing brains or footballing braun? For me it's brains every time. It's the reason I love the sport.

The Whole Story

34 games, 29 goals. In Championship Manager this statistic would make a player "indispensable to the club". Why then does it seem that Samuel Eto'o has been on his way out of Barcelona for the past six months? Why are other strikers being linked with the club when they already have one who is on course to be this year's Pichichi winner? On the surface it seems absurd, but for me the deeper truth is rather simple: Sammy Eto'o really isn't very good.

If you're getting ready to burn me at the stake for heresy then I can understand, but bear with me here. First of all, I'm not saying this as someone who merely witnessed him play poorly against Chelsea, but saw little else of him. At a guess I would say I've seen about 30 of Eto'o 34 games, so my opinion is by no means uninformed. That's not to suggest I am right, but that I haven't come to the conclusion using a tiny sample size. Secondly, I don't deny that Eto'o has desirable qualities. Nice eyes, perfect figure - they're all there. Oh, and he's quick, he's strong, and he can hit the ball very hard which leads to some spectacular goals, like this one. And thirdly, 29 goals is 29 goals. I don't deny the value of such a statistic, but football is not baseball, and statistics do not tell the whole story.

The whole story -- in simple terms -- is something like this: Samuel Eto'o is surrounded by world-class players who create chance after chance for him. He doesn't convert most of these chances, but because he gets so many the law of averages means that he does score some of the time. 29 goals may seem like a good return, but in the context of the season it's actually quite poor. Perhaps this is churlish of me, but remember that it's not just me who has doubts about the Cameroonian. Guardiola wanted to sell him at the start of the season, and it appears that he still wants to sell him. Does he just not like the cut of Eto'o's jib? Maybe, but I think he also see in Eto'o a profligacy and brainlessness that could cost Barcelona dearly when it comes to the upper echelons of world football - the Champions League.

I said to a couple of United fans that Barcelona will either win the final despite Eto'o, or lose if because of him. Harsh hyperbole, but some solid truth is in there somewhere. People may point to Messi underperforming against Chelsea, but you could still see the danger he possesses when on the ball. Cheslea could too, which is why three players rushed to him when he got the ball in the last minute only for him to cooly lay it off to Iniesta. Eto'o was a different proposition. He wasn't tightly marked, yet he was Barcelona's least potent player. His link up play was unimaginative, his ball retention the worst of the 11 starters, and in the first leg he missed arguably Barcelona's best chance over the two legs (though admittedly he did create the chance himself). You could apply the same description to his performances in last season's semi-final, and my prediction is that I will be saying the same thing come Thursday week.

Extremely Provisional

Arsenal aren't as bad as recent displays suggest, but there is notable room for improvement all the same, both in terms of personnel and tactics. With regards tactics, here is one piece of wisdom I would happily give every Arsenal full-back and winger: stop crossing the ball into the box. There is no point. You neither possess the quality to hit consistently accurate crosses nor the targets to make those crosses count. For a team praised for their passing game, Arsenal really do pump way too many aimless balls into the box.

I would also adopt the current Barcelona formation: 4-3-3.

With regards personnel, I would get rid of Emmanuel Adebayor and Theo Walcott (though that one is not going to happen). The former has become a liability, and the latter is just not good enough, and hasn't convinced me that he will ever be good enough. Defensively it's hard to know what to do. I think I'd buy in someone like Hangeland, meaning one of Toure or Gallas would have to be axed. I think they're both good players, but much like the supposed pseudo William Wallce, they're just not tall enough. I would probably side with Toure since he's younger and not as troublesome as Gallas (although it must be said that Billy No Mates has been excellent since losing the captaincy). Clichy and Sagna are okay, though they both enjoyed indifferent seasons.

I would buy in an experienced midfielder who can make a tackle and pass a ball. Yaya Toure would be perfect, but it would be foolish to think that he would trade Barcelona for Arsenal. Perhaps someone like Flamin...oh, wait. It's a tough position to fill, and I think players like Song and Denilson are not too far away from slotting in, but they need an older head in the mix to learn from. I shall name him DM for now, but perhaps I can put a real name for that position in the coming weeks and months.

There are maybe a few other tweaks I would make, but here is an extremely provisional Arsenal XI for next season:

.............................................................Almunia........................................................

Sagna...................................Toure........................Hangeland.......................Clichy

...............................................................DM..............................................................

..........................................Fabregas..................Nasri.............................................

Rosicky....................................................................................................Arshavin

.......................................................van Persie........................................................

Gutted

News coming out of Barcelona is that Iniesta could well miss out on the Champions League final in Rome. It's no exaggeration to say that I'm absolutely gutted at the thought.

Unscripted Drama

That is why we watch football. Pure, unscripted drama. The game began a goal that made Tony Yeboah's strikes of old look like childs play, and ended with as well taken a shot as you will see under such immense pressure. In between was a fierce battle, dominated by Barcelona in terms of possession, but dominated by Chelsea in terms of clear-cut chances.

There can be no comparison between the two semi-finals. To conclude from them that Man Utd are leagues ahead of everyone is to neglect the task Man Utd faced after 10 minutes in the second leg - don't concede four goals against a dejected bunch of "babies". What's worse is that people are looking at Cristiano from that game, then looking at Messi against Chelsea and -- treating all things as being equal -- concluding that Ronaldo is the big game player, the best in the world, and so forth. Suffice to say, all things were not equal. In fact they couldn't have been anymore unequal.

To analyse yesterday's game is almost to do it an injustice, but there are a few noteworthy points to be made:

- Valdes didn't put a foot wrong over the two legs, and made some crucial saves that kept Barcelona in the tie. For that he should be applauded.

- Barcelona had a weakened team out yesterday. They were forced to play a world-class holding midfielder in central defense, and replace him with a novice. The absence of a hugely influential player (Henry) also forced their best midfielder out to a less prominent wide position, meaning Barcelona were short two of their usual three midfielders.

- For all the talk of Chelsea's aerial threat, they didn't really threaten in that department at all. Kudos to the Barcelona players for defending well against free-kicks and corners.

- Chelsea should have had one penalty, so should Barcelona (from the first leg). Just because they had four shouts for a penalty doesn't mean anything, and to use it as an excuse is a bit pathetic.

- Drogba cost Chelsea their place in the final. He missed two great chances, one in each leg, and I'm convinced that his pretending to be injured was what made Hiddink substitute him, and thus hand the initiative to the 10 men of Barcelona.

- Barcelona dominated possession even with 10 men. They probably would have done so with 9, such was Chelsea's inability to control this game in an attacking sense.

- Frank Lampard goes missing in big games.

- Chelsea defended brilliantly.

- Messi does not play the game of football for Messi's sake. In our Youtube generation it seems people are disappointed if he doesn't go by three players and slot the ball home in every game. Being tripled marked meant that all he could do was make sure he didn't lose the ball, and hope for some kind of opening. With the headless Eto'o alongside of him it was hard to put an incisive attack together, but the Argentine can claim an assist which put Barcelona through.

- As a mailbox contributor said, lets finally put the Ronaldo v Messi debate to bed. Clearly Iniesta is the best footballer in the world. Eamon Dunphy commented that this whole "best in the world " thing is a cod. He's right in a way. It seems to be a debate invented in the last few seasons, to cater for the ego of Ronaldo. When Zinidene Zidane was playing I don't remember hearing people describe games as Zidane v Pirlo or what have you. Do you ever remember a game where Zidane's reputation of "best in the world" was on the line, as if the sport we were watching was boxing? Football is a team game, and that's one of the reasons Ronaldo was good on Tuesday. He played that way. That's also one of the reasons Iniesta is so good. I couldn't have been happier to see the ghostly playmaker score such a fantastic goal, because his name deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the other great players of the modern age.

- Eto'o is a liability. I said as much before the game, and he will continue to let the side down in Rome. Quite simply, he's brainless.

There so much more to be said about that one game, and so much to anticipate with regards to the final. As usual, feel free to leave comments below.

The Non-Prediction Prediction

Before I move on to tonight's game, a word on last night. Much is being made of United's performance, but one has to take into account the effect of the two goals that should never have been. They ended the game as a contest, and left United playing a team with no belief, heart, or will to even go on. Needless to say, that is an easy team to look good against. Perhaps I'm being churlish, but surely the game must be put into context, with the context being that United were handed two goals. Don't get me wrong - they fully deserve to be in the final, but I don't think we can afford to read into this game too much.

As for tonight, well, it can't be any more disappointing than last night's effort. Given it was only interesting for 7 minutes that's not saying much, but still, I expect this one to go the distance. That said, what kind of game can we expect? Something similar to the first leg? In some ways yes, but in other ways, no, and in yet more ways I don't actually know.

One thing I can guarantee is that Barcelona will see more of the ball than Chelsea. Maybe not as much as in the Nou Camp, but not far off. They really do only know how to play one way, and that is to pass the ball ad infinitum. My query is whether Stamford Bridge will help or hinder them. It is approximately a tenth of the size of the Nou Camp, which has to make a difference one way or another. My gut feeling is that the smaller pitch will help Barcelona (and Chelsea for that matter). At the Nou Camp is is easy for Barcelona to stroke the ball around without getting near the opposition's goal. However, given a smaller pitch you simply can't help but get closer to the opposition's goal. A tighter pitch will require more accuracy, but if anyone can rise to the challenge it's this Barcelona team.

Another factor in Barcelona's favour is the win against Madrid. That game must have been playing on their minds in the first leg, and so with La Liga all but wrapped up Barcelona minds will be 100% focused on the job at hand. Confidence is huge in sport, and while Chelsea are a different animal than Madrid, Barcelona will be confident of playing the way they have done for most of the season and winning.

The deployment of Messi could also change the dynamic of this game. On Saturday he played as a deep lying centre-forward, and he was magnificent. I thought this might happen in the first leg against Chelsea (in fact I may even have written as much), and I think it should happen tonight. Eto'o needs to be kept out on the wing where he can be as irrelevant as possible, and leave Messi to run at Alex and Terry. But even if this doesn't happen, Messi can only improve from a week ago, right? In fact you could say that about a few key Barcelona players. Iniesta was good last week, but he can be better, more incisive. I don't rate Eto'o very highly, but he is still better than what he showed in the first leg.

The bottom line is that Barcelona were not at their best last week and yet they still completely dominated possession and had three great chances to score. I'm almost certain they will be better at the Bridge, which leaves me believing there will be blood goals tonight.

Unfortunately, while I can predict what Barcelona are going to do with a degree of success, I have no clue how Chelsea are going to line up. Will they play the same 11? Will Anelka start? Will they attempt to complete three passes in a row? Anything I write about Chelsea will be pure conjecture, but since they need to score at least one goal it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that they may be a bit more adventurous on their home turf, especially with Barcelona's defensive woes. I haven't seen much of Caceres, but the fact that he is roughly Barcelona's fifth choice central defender doesn't exactly inspire confidence given who is in front of him. Drogba has the ability to exploit weakness like no other striker, and so there are goals for the taking should Chelsea decide they actually want to win this game.

The smaller pitch will also help Chelsea, since they will be able to support Drogba much more quickly. I don't expect Lampard to be much more influential than he was in terms of keeping the ball, but I do expect him to get forward more and have a few speculative efforts that may or may not deflect goalwards. His freekicks and corners will also be of vital importance. Madrid scored two headed goals on Saturday, and so there is no reason why Chelsea can't do the same, provided they attack with enough impetus to actually get freekicks and corners.

This is the biggest match either of these teams have left. For Chelsea it is a chance for a second bite at the cherry. A chance to atone for that slip. For Barcelona it is the chance to keep the treble alive, and a chance to show that they can actually beat an English team or two. The pressure on both sets of players will be immense, and there can be no ignoring the effect of it. A 6-2 win at the Bernabeu indicates that Barcelona can handle it. Chelsea's recent success indicates that they can handle it. Honestly, this game is too hard to call, so I won't even try. I desperatly want Barcelona to win, but their defensive liability means they will probably have to do so the hard way. Whatever the case this will be an intriguing game, and one I can't wait to see (famous last words?).

Branded As An Idiot

I've been critical of Ronaldo in the past, but yesterday he was quite something. It just goes to show you the importance of working for the team and how that effects your own individual display. That said, in the F365 mailbox Man Utd fans are coming out saying things along the lines of "People who said Ronaldo is a big game bottler are idiots". A couple of points on that:

1. I haven't read anything suggesting Ronaldo as a big game bottler in quite some time.

And

2. Ronaldo most certainly did underperform in big games, and so him stopping doing that doesn't make people who once pointed out the obvious idiots. That's like one person saying Martin Skrtl hasn't scored all season, and then when he does score another person turning around and saying "You're an idiot. See, he has scored!"

Many of the other things I've written may justifiably see me branded as an idiot, but not this one.

No way. Just No Way.

Given that the score is only one nil this may seem slightly odd, but my feeling about tonight's game is that it is a tad irrelevant. I honestly cannot see Arsenal coming away with a sufficient win. United may have only scored one last week, but all the signs point to the fact that they are more than capable of adding to that at the Emirates. People may point to Arsenal beating them back in November as hope for the Gunners, but analysis of that game is hardly titled in Arsenal's favour. I can recall United having several gilt-edged chances, which on another day would have seen them bag about three goals. All of this leads me to believe that United will score at least one goal chez Gunners, meaning Arsenal will need to score at least three. No way. Just no way.

Despite my pessimistic outlook, Wenger still has to give his team the best possible chance of proving me -- and most others -- wrong. There is an Arsenal team that will fail miserably, and an Arsenal team that will run United close. The former includes Diaby on the left and Cesc in the supporting striker role. The latter looks like this:

...............................................Almunia......................................................

Sagna....................Toure...................Djourou.................................Gibbs


Walcott...............Fabregas..............Song........................................Nasri

............................van Persie......................................................................

.........................................................Adebayor...........................................


I don't claim that to be a flawless team. I have little time for Adebayor, I think Walcott is green and indisciplined, and the defense doesn't exactly scream "Impregnable". Still, in my mind it's Arsenal's best chance of upsetting the odds. Should United decide not to turn up for one reason or another then this is a team that can make them pay. However, in the semi-final of a Champions League I don't expect any mistakes from the Red Devils.

This is a cliche, and to say that it's a cliche for a reason is a cliche, and to say that saying it is a cliche for a reason is a cliche, but the first goal is just so important it's hard to overstate it. The simple fact is that if Arsenal get it then the tie is all square, but if United get it then Arsenal need three unanswered goals. What a difference a goal makes, eh? Because of this I find it almost impossible to see anything but a Man Utd triumph. It may be close, it may be decided by a late goal, but one way or another it's got to be United for me.