Viewing Thread:
"Manchester United V Chelsea"

Good match.

Thought Man U were a bit unlucky not to get to extra time, thought they outplayed Chelsea in parts of the match. Still, solid defending and excellent counter attacking from Chelsea. Stupid Howard, again.

Kawada wrote:
> Speaking from a ex-keepers point of view i'm guess i'm a bit biased
> but the defenders really should have dealt with that before it even
> got to the goal.

Yeh I agree to a certain extent, the defenders should have made some sort of effort to clear it and there should have been someone on the back post to aid the keeper.

However, going back to the Peter Scheimical days, I have no doubts that he would have been in line sight of the ball, so as its bending in and if it does clear most of the frontline defenders or the attackers (as it did do yesterday) there was a chance for the keeper to palm it away or get something on it to avoid it going into the net.

Howard started taking steps back into the goal, rather than follow the bend of the ball, therefore not only was he on the wrong side of the bend but as the ball went into the net, he was firmly behind the goaline, which didn't give him a chance.

Good game and both teams showed in parts of the game just how good they are. Shame about the result but what can you do?

few points to be raised though

Makelele you are a very very lucky boy that you tried the hatchet job on someone as swift footed as Twinkletoes instead of someone like Keano (probably because once Keano had gotten up he'd have given him a good seeing to) speaking of whom why in the hell did he get a yellow card for that little shove on Makelele? That thing happens every time a challenge like that happens and Terry did the same thing to Fortune just behind it. Rob Styles loves to get the cards out so he can be on tv doesn't he?

Far as the penalty goes, seen them given seen them not but there was contact. I guess because Fortune was going away from goal was the reason it wasn't given. Should shut the *oh United get given everything at OT* brigade up for a while though

Speaking from a ex-keepers point of view i'm guess i'm a bit biased but the defenders really should have dealt with that before it even got to the goal. For it to bounce into the goal is just pathetic. Bloody Andy Gray doing his best to inflict the commentators curse on us. Not blaming Howard though as if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have even been in a position to win the game had he not made that save before Giggs' wonder strike.

Hope Chelsea go on to win it now as they deserve it. Good luck to them even if Drogba loves to roll around on the OT turf

The penalty: The one in the first leg was a clear cut one and should have been given the Fortune one today was debatable and could have gone either way - but there was clearly contact between the players. If it had been given it would have made up for the Saha one on the 1st leg, however neither were given so it doesn't matter and we move on.

I didnt think it was a great game to watch, we played great at times and woeful defending for both of Chelsea's goals and threw the match away really with those two decisive moments, the first goal came against the run of play and the 2nd goal? well I don't have to say much about it.

Can't see Chelsea not winning this cup now unless Liverpool can find a miracle from somewhere.

Bridge went to put his foot through Fortune, but then pulled out. Funnily enough Fortune went down just as if Bridge had booted him....

i only added an extra "on" :)

I noticed before you posted anyway :P

Ray Wilkinson!? :-D
Ray Wilkins, heh. (EDIT: Changed it in the nick of time!)

And you have to admit it was hardly a "clear" penalty, like you said. It was a 50/50, sometimes they're given, sometimes they're not. All I'm saying is that Fortune tried to con the ref because there was never enough contact to warrant him going over. It was more of a brush past where he dangled his leg out to get some contact.

or†ega wrote:
> bah, having to support liverpool in a final.
>
> nice 2nd half performance from united there, but complete tosh in the
> first half not even having a shot on goal at home.
>
> 2 clear penalties decisions not given over the two legs. Chelsea
> have had thier fair share of luck.

as the alleged foul was on quinton fortune in the area it can't be calld a goal scoring opportunity! (yes i know thats not important in a penalty awarding!)

hmmmm, and how did you come to that decision? And you can tell by Wayne Bridge's reaction (turns and looks straight at the ref) that he knew it was a pen.

Andy Gray, George Graham, and Ray Wilkins all said it was a blatent penalty.

or†ega wrote:
> 2 clear penalties decisions not given over the two legs. Chelsea
> have had thier fair share of luck.

Fortune clearly threw himself to the floor. It was the right decision not to give it.

Howard couldn't do anything - Duffs free-kick was undefendable from a Keepers point of view.

Maybe if he#'s have commited, mind.

But I am happy.