Liverpool F.c.

[smokie36]

Okay as a neutral I thoroughly enjoyed the match and thought LFC deserved the win.

Why?

Thought both teams put on a great show and that te referee contributed to a free flowing game.

Yep, the ref was how refs should be. Great example.

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals. United were impressive on the ball but failed to turn possession into chances........ if you dont make chances you dont score goals you dont win games.

Absolutely right. Utd had a lot more possession simply by not taking chances although the Liverpool players look a bit static when not on the ball. They need to look to create space for the man on the ball. Man U are much better at this aspect.

Last 20 mins Man U never really threatened. Giggs had a poor game.

[rixalex]

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals.

So you are telling me you have never seen a team that deserved to win, lose, or a team that deserved to lose, win?

At the end of the day, of course it doesn't matter who deserved it, it matters who scored most - not disputing that. I would dispute based on work rate, possession, pass quality etc, your opinion that Liverpool deserved it. A draw was the most their play deserved. They got more than they deserved. Don't begrudge them that. This is football. It happens.

[Abrak]

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals.

So you are telling me you have never seen a team that deserved to win, lose, or a team that deserved to lose, win?

At the end of the day, of course it doesn't matter who deserved it, it matters who scored most - not disputing that. I would dispute based on work rate, possession, pass quality etc, your opinion that Liverpool deserved it. A draw was the most their play deserved. They got more than they deserved. Don't begrudge them that. This is football. It happens.

What I would say is this. Possession is not highly correlated with whether a team wins. In fact in the MLS it is actually inversely correlated.

Liverpool have played City 4 times. When we had 64% of possession at the Emirates we lost 3-0. When we had 50% possession at Anfield we drew. And when we had 44% of possession we won on one occasion and drew on the other.

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

[mrbojangles]

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Indeed. A team that passes the ball around their own defence will keep possession and increase the % possession but the ball isn't much good there if your looking to try and score.

[Abrak]

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Indeed. A team that passes the ball around their own defence will keep possession and increase the % possession but the ball isn't much good there if your looking to try and score.

Yes I agree.

In fact City supporters know this. They were beaten by Napoli when they had 70% possession. And well beaten by Bayern when they had 50% possession. And City are rarely beaten. So you can tell a City supporter because he is always keen for the opposition to 'go at them' when he knows the best chance of beating City is to cede possession.

[mrbojangles]

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Indeed. A team that passes the ball around their own defence will keep possession and increase the % possession but the ball isn't much good there if your looking to try and score.

Yes I agree.

In fact City supporters know this. They were beaten by Napoli when they had 70% possession. And well beaten by Bayern when they had 50% possession. And City are rarely beaten. So you can tell a City supporter because he is always keen for the opposition to 'go at them' when he knows the best chance of beating City is to cede possession.

Well that's not quite what I meant ref the Napoli game. In that game we also had more shots on and off target than they did and more territorial advantage. In fact we battered them apart from putting the ball in the net. The Bayern one really hinged on a blatant penalty that was turned down.

[rixalex]

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals.

So you are telling me you have never seen a team that deserved to win, lose, or a team that deserved to lose, win?

At the end of the day, of course it doesn't matter who deserved it, it matters who scored most - not disputing that. I would dispute based on work rate, possession, pass quality etc, your opinion that Liverpool deserved it. A draw was the most their play deserved. They got more than they deserved. Don't begrudge them that. This is football. It happens.

What I would say is this. Possession is not highly correlated with whether a team wins. In fact in the MLS it is actually inversely correlated.

Liverpool have played City 4 times. When we had 64% of possession at the Emirates we lost 3-0. When we had 50% possession at Anfield we drew. And when we had 44% of possession we won on one occasion and drew on the other.

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Well, getting back to basics here, but you can't score unless you have the ball (bar something freak), and the more time you have the ball, the more opportunity you have to do something with it with regards putting it between the posts. Not of course that you always will.

At the end of the day though, whether or not you believe that possession has any correlation to goal scoring, i enjoy watching my team having more of it than the other, and games in which we don't, games in which we tactically take the decision to let the other team play onto us, or games in which we are just crap at holding on to the ball, are never games i enjoy watching, irregardless of whether during the short spell in which we had the ball, we managed to score more than the other team. But that's just me.

Winning ugly: take the points yes, take the pleasure, no not so much. Yes it is a luxury, demanding your team play pretty, but you don't need to be a Barcelona to feel that way. Take West Ham. Take Arsenal. The game needs teams like this.

[carmine]

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals.

So you are telling me you have never seen a team that deserved to win, lose, or a team that deserved to lose, win?

At the end of the day, of course it doesn't matter who deserved it, it matters who scored most - not disputing that. I would dispute based on work rate, possession, pass quality etc, your opinion that Liverpool deserved it. A draw was the most their play deserved. They got more than they deserved. Don't begrudge them that. This is football. It happens.

What I would say is this. Possession is not highly correlated with whether a team wins. In fact in the MLS it is actually inversely correlated.

Liverpool have played City 4 times. When we had 64% of possession at the Emirates we lost 3-0. When we had 50% possession at Anfield we drew. And when we had 44% of possession we won on one occasion and drew on the other.

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Well, getting back to basics here, but you can't score unless you have the ball (bar something freak), and the more time you have the ball, the more opportunity you have to do something with it with regards putting it between the posts. Not of course that you always will.

At the end of the day though, whether or not you believe that possession has any correlation to goal scoring, i enjoy watching my team having more of it than the other, and games in which we don't, games in which we tactically take the decision to let the other team play onto us, or games in which we are just crap at holding on to the ball, are never games i enjoy watching, irregardless of whether during the short spell in which we had the ball, we managed to score more than the other team. But that's just me.

Winning ugly: take the points yes, take the pleasure, no not so much. Yes it is a luxury, demanding your team play pretty, but you don't need to be a Barcelona to feel that way. Take West Ham. Take Arsenal. The game needs teams like this.

Arsene Wengers public breakdown would be complete if he knew his footballing side was being compaired to a team coached by fat Sam Allardyce.

[smokie36]

Beat me to it carms. Is Big Sam playing the beautiful game these days? Wonders never cease!

[rixalex]

Beat me to it carms. Is Big Sam playing the beautiful game these days? Wonders never cease!

To be honest, i haven't sat down and watched an entire West Ham game since they dropped out of the Premier League, so have no idea how pretty their football is right now, besides snippets i read, and i wouldn't be keen to make a judgement based simply on what i hear from other people. Perhaps from Singher i might though. Where is the lad when you need him?

[rixalex]

Arsene Wengers public breakdown would be complete if he knew his footballing side was being compaired to a team coached by fat Sam Allardyce.

I think you'll find that's "big" Sam.

[rixalex]

Arsene Wengers public breakdown would be complete if he knew his footballing side was being compaired to a team coached by fat Sam Allardyce.

Would Harry's public breakdown also be complete were i to say that i'd throw Spurs into that hat as well, cos right now i certainly would. Happily pay money to see them play.

[carmine]

Beat me to it carms. Is Big Sam playing the beautiful game these days? Wonders never cease!

To be honest, i haven't sat down and watched an entire West Ham game since they dropped out of the Premier League, so have no idea how pretty their football is right now, besides snippets i read, and i wouldn't be keen to make a judgement based simply on what i hear from other people. Perhaps from Singher i might though. Where is the lad when you need him?

Or even Josephine!! Personally i want them promoted so we can get back derby games. I love beating the spammers and last season for the first time in a while we failed to do so. Mindyou with Alladyce at the helm i doubt the ball would spend much time on the ground.

[Abrak]

Why??? Obvious answer would be they scored more goals.

So you are telling me you have never seen a team that deserved to win, lose, or a team that deserved to lose, win?

At the end of the day, of course it doesn't matter who deserved it, it matters who scored most - not disputing that. I would dispute based on work rate, possession, pass quality etc, your opinion that Liverpool deserved it. A draw was the most their play deserved. They got more than they deserved. Don't begrudge them that. This is football. It happens.

What I would say is this. Possession is not highly correlated with whether a team wins. In fact in the MLS it is actually inversely correlated.

Liverpool have played City 4 times. When we had 64% of possession at the Emirates we lost 3-0. When we had 50% possession at Anfield we drew. And when we had 44% of possession we won on one occasion and drew on the other.

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Well, getting back to basics here, but you can't score unless you have the ball (bar something freak), and the more time you have the ball, the more opportunity you have to do something with it with regards putting it between the posts. Not of course that you always will.

At the end of the day though, whether or not you believe that possession has any correlation to goal scoring, i enjoy watching my team having more of it than the other, and games in which we don't, games in which we tactically take the decision to let the other team play onto us, or games in which we are just crap at holding on to the ball, are never games i enjoy watching, irregardless of whether during the short spell in which we had the ball, we managed to score more than the other team. But that's just me.

Winning ugly: take the points yes, take the pleasure, no not so much. Yes it is a luxury, demanding your team play pretty, but you don't need to be a Barcelona to feel that way. Take West Ham. Take Arsenal. The game needs teams like this.

You have presented 2 arguments.

One is an axiom. If you have 100% possession or 100% territorial advantage you will not lose the game

Unfortunately we already know this. But it is a bit like arguing that if you shoot a person with a gun twice he is more likely to die than if he is only shot once. It simply isnt true.

Or a bit like arguing if you dont shoot him he wont die. Or if you shoot someone a million times he is guaranteed to die. I do know these axioms already.

Having territorial advantage or more possession doesnt necessarily mean you win. If you happen to simply pass it around yourselves without even trying to score a goal, I can guarantee it wont.

Swansea have massive possession stats, huge passing stats with great pass completion stats. If football was defined by these parameters they would be in the top 6. But they are not. It all comes down to who wins.

[smokie36]

This is why goalscorers cost more money....

[Abrak]

This is why goalscorers cost more money....

Although I could argue that is why goalkeepers are worth a lot when they arent.

Theoretically Bent is worth a lot because he scores a lot of goals with crap service. While Rooney is bound to score a lot of goals if he plays for United.

And if we know the answer is Michael Owen we are delusional.

[smokie36]

This is why goalscorers cost more money....

Although I could argue that is why goalkeepers are worth a lot when they arent.

Theoretically Bent is worth a lot because he scores a lot of goals with crap service. While Rooney is bound to score a lot of goals if he plays for United.

And if we know the answer is Michael Owen we are delusional.

I read yesterday that he's still only 32. Bloody 'ell he's been around forever!

[Abrak]

This is why goalscorers cost more money....

Although I could argue that is why goalkeepers are worth a lot when they arent.

Theoretically Bent is worth a lot because he scores a lot of goals with crap service. While Rooney is bound to score a lot of goals if he plays for United.

And if we know the answer is Michael Owen we are delusional.

I read yesterday that he's still only 32. Bloody 'ell he's been around forever!

Yeah I know what you mean.

It is rather like Walcott who seems to have been around forever and is still only 22.

[carmine]

This is why goalscorers cost more money....

Although I could argue that is why goalkeepers are worth a lot when they arent.

Theoretically Bent is worth a lot because he scores a lot of goals with crap service. While Rooney is bound to score a lot of goals if he plays for United.

And if we know the answer is Michael Owen we are delusional.

I read yesterday that he's still only 32. Bloody 'ell he's been around forever!

Yeah I know what you mean.

It is rather like Walcott who seems to have been around forever and is still only 22.

Gareth was caught by Spurs when he was a mere 18 year old.

[rixalex]

Unfortunately we already know this. But it is a bit like arguing that if you shoot a person with a gun twice he is more likely to die than if he is only shot once. It simply isnt true.

What are you talking about? Of course you are more likely to die if you are shot twice, rather than once. Probability must go up.

Having territorial advantage or more possession doesnt necessarily mean you win.

Who said it did?

Swansea have massive possession stats, huge passing stats with great pass completion stats. If football was defined by these parameters they would be in the top 6. But they are not. It all comes down to who wins.

Swansea are another team who have been a lot of fun to watch, and when i see them play, see how hard they are working, see how accurate their crossing can be, i find myself thinking, yes, i hope they stay in the Premier League ahead of a team that parks the bus and hoofs and hopes.

[Abrak]

Although I could argue that is why goalkeepers are worth a lot when they arent.

Theoretically Bent is worth a lot because he scores a lot of goals with crap service. While Rooney is bound to score a lot of goals if he plays for United.

And if we know the answer is Michael Owen we are delusional.

I read yesterday that he's still only 32. Bloody 'ell he's been around forever!

Yeah I know what you mean.

It is rather like Walcott who seems to have been around forever and is still only 22.

Gareth was caught by Spurs when he was a mere 18 year old.

Yeah I know what you mean.

According to Wikipedia, Damien Comolli was responsible for signing Gareth and Luka - little do you know that he has signed the second coming of Christ but we shall see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Comolli

[Gers1873]

It appears that many teams seem to enjoy passing the ball amongst themselves rather than actually scoring goals

Indeed. A team that passes the ball around their own defence will keep possession and increase the % possession but the ball isn't much good there if your looking to try and score.

Most fans would rather WIN ugly than lose playing pretty footnall --- it's not how that counts it's how many.

[rixalex]

Most fans would rather WIN ugly than lose playing pretty footnall --- it's not how that counts it's how many.

Perhaps but i don't think anyone would chose to win ugly if there was a different way to do it. I think fans accept playing ugly when up against opposition that is superior. Who wouldn't be happy to win ugly against Barcelona? Would you be happy for your team to play ugly in every game though? Would you be happy for your team to play ugly when playing lower league opposition at home? I think, despite what you say, fans do care about the how. It is important to them.

Now if i were a Liverpool fan, and i looked at the United team sheet last night, i would be hoping that playing at home, my team would have enough about them to not sit back, but have a go at them. That they didn't, would disappoint me. Pleased of course to win, but not pleased about the way they had to do it. It wasn't convincing and it wasn't really that impressive, and if they played the same game another nine times in that same manner, how often would they come away with the win as they did last night?

[Abrak]

Most fans would rather WIN ugly than lose playing pretty footnall --- it's not how that counts it's how many.

Perhaps but i don't think anyone would chose to win ugly if there was a different way to do it. I think fans accept playing ugly when up against opposition that is superior. Who wouldn't be happy to win ugly against Barcelona? Would you be happy for your team to play ugly in every game though? Would you be happy for your team to play ugly when playing lower league opposition at home? I think, despite what you say, fans do care about the how. It is important to them.

Now if i were a Liverpool fan, and i looked at the United team sheet last night, i would be hoping that playing at home, my team would have enough about them to not sit back, but have a go at them. That they didn't, would disappoint me. Pleased of course to win, but not pleased about the way they had to do it. It wasn't convincing and it wasn't really that impressive, and if they played the same game another nine times in that same manner, how often would they come away with the win as they did last night?

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

[rixalex]

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

You keep harping on about missing two players from your team as if Man United were at full strength. Come on, Giggs, Park and Scholes in mid-field. No Rooney. No Nani. No Fletcher. No Vidic. No Jones. If you don't agree that that team we put out, is a team that at home, Liverpool should at least be equal to, and shouldn't need to sit back against, well then i guess your expectations these days really are low.

A bet when you guys saw our team sheet before kick off you thought, come on, here we go. And i bet right up until the 88th minute, you were thinking, this has been pretty awful. Go on, deny it.

[Abrak]

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

You keep harping on about missing two players from your team as if Man United were at full strength. Come on, Giggs, Park and Scholes in mid-field. No Rooney. No Nani. No Fletcher. No Vidic. No Jones. If you don't agree that that team we put out, is a team that at home, Liverpool should at least be equal to, and shouldn't need to sit back against, well then i guess your expectations these days really are low.

A bet when you guys saw our team sheet before kick off you thought, come on, here we go. And i bet right up until the 88th minute, you were thinking, this has been pretty awful. Go on, deny it.

Yes I agree. A win against Utd is a 'win'. Winning ugly without your two best players is a 'win'.

Given that we have been consistently beaten by Utd for 20 years, the idea that we should only 'win' if we 'win in style' would be a little bit arrogant. So yes I agree we would like to 'win' with style but essentially we will now take any win as a good one.

[Devil]

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

You keep harping on about missing two players from your team as if Man United were at full strength. Come on, Giggs, Park and Scholes in mid-field. No Rooney. No Nani. No Fletcher. No Vidic. No Jones. If you don't agree that that team we put out, is a team that at home, Liverpool should at least be equal to, and shouldn't need to sit back against, well then i guess your expectations these days really are low.

A bet when you guys saw our team sheet before kick off you thought, come on, here we go. And i bet right up until the 88th minute, you were thinking, this has been pretty awful. Go on, deny it.

Bitter Bitter Manc...what a load of tosh !

It was clearly obvious to all that know anything about our squad that the game only two days before was going to greatly effect what team we put out and most importantly how we played. Adam, Bellamy and Kuyt were obvious ones to be rested and be used as late impact players. Something I thought your manager might of made changes for as a reaction but he didn't ...

The key point was tactics which I notice you have not mentioned...we absorbed the pressure, let you keep the ball between your slow midfield, Valencia seemed to be your only outlet. We targeted your awful keeper early on which seemed to be a well planned tactic by standing in front of him which resulted in our first goal. And the key tactical subs Kuyt, Adam and Bellamy all coming on at the right time. Your right back was caught out of position for the second goal which seems to be a common theme for him late on in games.

Curious the last time we played you we outplayed and out bossed you and yet you opted not to start with Rooney and Nani then even when fit.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Devil

[rixalex]

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

You keep harping on about missing two players from your team as if Man United were at full strength. Come on, Giggs, Park and Scholes in mid-field. No Rooney. No Nani. No Fletcher. No Vidic. No Jones. If you don't agree that that team we put out, is a team that at home, Liverpool should at least be equal to, and shouldn't need to sit back against, well then i guess your expectations these days really are low.

A bet when you guys saw our team sheet before kick off you thought, come on, here we go. And i bet right up until the 88th minute, you were thinking, this has been pretty awful. Go on, deny it.

Yes I agree. A win against Utd is a 'win'. Winning ugly without your two best players is a 'win'.

Given that we have been consistently beaten by Utd for 20 years, the idea that we should only 'win' if we 'win in style' would be a little bit arrogant. So yes I agree we would like to 'win' with style but essentially we will now take any win as a good one.

All comes down to whether that team you played last night could have taken the game to United, or whether that really was the only game plan for Liverpool that could have resulted in a victory. If the later is true, well then the manager obviously got it right and should be congratulated for that. All i'm saying is it doesn't exactly say something good about the current state of the club, and that if i were you, having recovered from a state of euphoria that beating United brings, i would be under no illusions about how bad things were.

[rixalex]

Bitter Bitter Manc...what a load of tosh !

It was clearly obvious to all that know anything about our squad that the game only two days before was going to greatly effect what team we put out and most importantly how we played. Adam, Bellamy and Kuyt were obvious ones to be rested and be used as late impact players. Something I thought your manager might of made changes for as a reaction but he didn't ...

The key point was tactics which I notice you have not mentioned...we absorbed the pressure, let you keep the ball between your slow midfield, Valencia seemed to be your only outlet. We targeted your awful keeper early on which seemed to be a well planned tactic by standing in front of him which resulted in our first goal. And the key tactical subs Kuyt, Adam and Bellamy all coming on at the right time. Your right back was caught out of position for the second goal which seems to be a common theme for him late on in games.

Curious the last time we played you we outplayed and out bossed you and yet you opted not to start with Rooney and Nani then even when fit.

Your accusation of me being fair weather for not sending you a private message of congratulations at 2 o'clock in the morning was every bit as daft as you now accusing me of being bitter. I have congratulated you for the win, and if i haven't said it already, i happily accept you won it fair and square.

My only comments today have been that i think we clearly played much better than you and that we deserved the win. Teams that deserve it often don't though, and that's the way it goes. And for our loss, i don't blame anyone else besides ourselves.

OK, you consider that bitterness. I consider it accuracy and realism. Perhaps i'm on the wrong thread for that sort of talk.

Edited January 29, 2012 by rixalex

[Abrak]

Honestly you might be as a Man U supporter entitled to regard the way you win as important. But Liverpool just lost 3-1 to Bolton. That is like saying you cant get a shag from a 20 stone woman from Inverness. So you are hardly likely to be bothered how about you go and score from the nubile chick who is Jude Law's 3 day old ex-chick. If you think that Liverpool without there best two players should be slightly interested in 'how' they beat you rather than whether they beat you, that is absolutely fine, and your contribution will be welcomed on the Man U is in the decline thread.

You keep harping on about missing two players from your team as if Man United were at full strength. Come on, Giggs, Park and Scholes in mid-field. No Rooney. No Nani. No Fletcher. No Vidic. No Jones. If you don't agree that that team we put out, is a team that at home, Liverpool should at least be equal to, and shouldn't need to sit back against, well then i guess your expectations these days really are low.

A bet when you guys saw our team sheet before kick off you thought, come on, here we go. And i bet right up until the 88th minute, you were thinking, this has been pretty awful. Go on, deny it.

Yes I agree. A win against Utd is a 'win'. Winning ugly without your two best players is a 'win'.

Given that we have been consistently beaten by Utd for 20 years, the idea that we should only 'win' if we 'win in style' would be a little bit arrogant. So yes I agree we would like to 'win' with style but essentially we will now take any win as a good one.

All comes down to whether that team you played last night could have taken the game to United, or whether that really was the only game plan for Liverpool that could have resulted in a victory. If the later is true, well then the manager obviously got it right and should be congratulated for that. All i'm saying is it doesn't exactly say something good about the current state of the club, and that if i were you, having recovered from a state of euphoria that beating United brings, i would be under no illusions about how bad things were.

Look most people who support LFC are very happy to no longer have H+G as owners and are very happy to have Dalglish as our manager. That is all.

We are not heroically optimistic about say winning the PL.

Amy win against Utd is seen as a triumph. I suspect that any Utd win against Barcelona seen as a triumph even if you were not dominant in possession or territory.

But in terms of how things are. The very fact that we have a manager that we believe is inherently suited to the job and owners that we believe are acting in the clubs best interests, means a lot more to us than any win, achieved anyhow over Utd.