Martin Samuel replies: so can Manchester United retain the European Cup?

European Cup final? Olympic stadium, Rome? Only one winner: Liverpool to complete a hat trick of wins in Italy's back yard. Paul.

MS: I think we’ve been here before, mate. Remember when it was Manchester United’s year because Sir Alex Ferguson was going to win it in his home town of Glasgow, then it was United’s year again because the final was at Old Trafford, then it was Arsene Wenger and Thierry Henry’s destiny to win it for Arsenal in Paris and, in May, Roman Abramovich was going to leave Moscow having built the European champions. The problem with fate is it doesn’t do requests.

What odds for a United and Chelsea rematch? It is becoming harder and harder for small clubs to spring a surprise. Is the Champions League becoming as predictable as the Premier League? Big Den.

MS: The fact that it has had a different winner each season suggests no, but its money is making the domestic leagues predictable and that lends uniformity to the entrants each year. In its defence, victories for Porto in 2004 and Liverpool in 2005 were a bigger shock than anything the Premier League has thrown up of late. In Premier League terms, Porto would be the equivalent of, say Aston Villa, a club that has the potential to be big, but is small by comparison in the modern era. Liverpool have an incredible European record, but have not won the domestic championship in modern times, so this was a blast from the past, like a comeback for a great club from a different decade. As for the feeling of same old, same old, when the Champions League draw is made – who would have imagined we would one day fail to be inspired by the pairing of Manchester United and Juventus – Michel Platini, the UEFA president, is trying to correct that with his reforms to encourage more champions from smaller nations. Whether seeing the best team in Bulgaria getting the granny knocked out of them by Chelsea, while Arsenal go into the UEFA Cup, makes for a better tournament, however, remains to be seen.    

Much relies on Cristiano Ronaldo or the signing of another striker. There are no concerns about United's defence and midfield is possibly the strongest area, but there must be worries up front. Last year we relied heavily on Ronaldo and step one was keeping him, but we need to add to our goalscoring resources and Ferguson must not repeat the mistake of 1999 when he seemed to think there was no way to improve a squad that had just won the Treble. I’m not sure Dimitar Berbatov is the man for the job. Would a stage like Old Trafford inspire him to display some consistency and passion along with his genius?  Tomred.

MS: This was posted before Berbatov’s signing became something of a certainty, so perhaps Tom has changed his mind subsequently. Clearly, United could not take a chance on going another season without a 20-goal striker and Berbatov seems perfect for them. Even the best teams cannot stand still.

Manchester United have as good a chance as any of the top teams. None of the other big names like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Bayern Munich, Arsenal and Liverpool have made significant additions to their squads. Even Chelsea have not signed players that could tip things in their favour, unless they get Kaka. David.

David, you say none of the big teams have made any significant additions, yet Madrid have a formidable squad with more experience than the side that was swept aside by Roma last year. With Wesley Schneider out for three months, they have signed a more than able replacement in Rafael Van Der Vaart and still have time to buy a striker. (It wouldn't even surprise me if they made a piqued bid for Berbatov to the umbrage of Manchester United.) Also, if you think Barcelona have made no significant additions you must have been living in a cave. Without Ronaldinho, an out of sorts Barcelona made it to the Champions League semi-final last year where they outplayed the eventual winners, Manchester United, in both legs. If Barcelona were an English side, we would be lambasting United for their negative football. Since, Barcelona have signed Daniel Alves, the Brazilian full back widely considered to be the best since Roberto Carlos. Barcelona have reinforced their defence with Martin Caceres and Seydou Keita and the midfield, which currently consists of Spanish Euro 2008 winners such as Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta, has been bolstered by the inclusion of Aleksandr Hleb from Arsenal. David Silva has also expressed his desire to play at the Nou Camp, so Barcelona’s summer activity may not be over yet. Hassan 

I cannot help but agree with the previous comment about Real Madrid looking likely to make an impact in Europe this year. They are the team standing in United’s way, the tie made even tastier because of the Ronaldo transfer saga. Mark Donnelly.

I half fancied United to do it, until I read Hassan’s post about Barcelona and remembered they have signed two of my favourite players, Alves and Hleb. A somewhat revisionist view of last year’s semi-final though. Barcelona played some nice stuff but never looked like scoring at Old Trafford and the one thing they may lack is a cutting edge.

United can retain it, but that that would only make them a lucky side, not a great one. Getting to the last four several seasons running is really more of an achievement than winning once because there is such a huge amount of luck involved in winning a competition. Reaching the final says something; winning it on penalties doesn't say any more. Josh.

Josh, your post is pretty poor. If United do win it, that will be three semi-finals in a row for them. And, by the way, reaching semi-finals consistently isn't better than winning it once. No-one remembers the semi-finalists. Nish. 

MS: I’m with Nish on this, I’m afraid. As the penalty shoot-out is part of the test of a final, however flawed that test might be, then winning it does say something. It says something that the Germans invariably pull it off, it says something that the English rarely do. It even said something about Portsmouth on Sunday that their penalty takers cracked in the Community Shield. And one European Cup final win is better than three thousand semi-final appearances, let alone three.

If United succeeded it would be one of the greatest feats in football history, but I can’t see it. They were one John Terry slip from losing it last season and I would put my money on Liverpool or Chelsea from England. United have ability, but whether they are complacent after their luck last year is yet to be seen. Brett. 

One John Terry slip from losing it? What a sad and bitter comment. In the final United dominated on chances, shots on target and possession and were unlucky not to have the game over in first half. They also beat some of the best opposition in Europe to get to the final, unlike Chelsea. Chris Tickles. 

MS: Right and wrong on both sides here, I think. Firstly, Chris, I don’t think Brett’s comment about John Terry’s slip is sad or bitter, just a fact. If Terry had scored United would have lost the final, so by any definition it was a stroke of luck that he ended up on his backside and missed. Where Brett’s argument collapses is with talk of complacency. Winning the domestic league, the European Cup and then spending £28.1m on a striker in the summer is hardly complacent (although I accept his post may have been overtaken by events and when it was written the Berbatov transfer was a rumour and nothing more*). Chris, meanwhile, is right in saying United had a harder route to Moscow, but I am afraid I cannot share his rather red-tinted replay of the final. I thought Chelsea were the better team over the 120 minutes, actually.

* Although at least you guys are now getting to know what it is like to be me. Ha ha.

Comments

[Emery Spencer]

To be honest, I don't think you have to understand much about football at all to see that Chelsea did indeed look more likely to win the match over the 120 minutes. No doubt, Manchester United nearly tore them a new hole early doors. But there after, the second half and extra time, there really only looked to be one winner. It was evident in United's inability to retain the ball, or to make any significant forward progress. It was also evident in the body language of the players.

I suppose part of it is that most people view hitting the post as unlucky, while having your shot saved just means your effort wasn't good enough. Hence why people discount Tevez's, Carrick's and Giggs' shots - they were all repelled by the opposition. On the other hand, Chelsea's efforts that hit post with the goal keeper beaten tend to seem to be nearer opportunities.

[Barry Saint]

Niall Bank's comment shows a lot of class that perfectly demonstrates the attitude of a lot of Reds (their manager being a case in point). Insults made towards a man with a far deeper insight into football than yourself aside, Niall. It would seem obvious to most that Chelsea were superior for the majority of the game (2nd half/extra time)- i don't think the north/south divide really plays a part- understanding football does.

[niall banks]

Offcourse you thought Chelsea were the better team all you southern journos would think that! Chelsea apologists! watch the match again Martin! Can't believe you get paid for comments like that! It's the same listening to the drivel you and winter etc talk on the Sunday supplement! open you eyes you southeren softie!

[John]

The CL is harder to win then the old European Cup. in 99, united played 17 games in the CL. When 'pool were dominating the compeitiong, it was only 7 games. its still 13 games excluding qualifying now to win it. The two competitions cannot be compared.

[ian barrie doughty]

Andrew Thomas, stop living in the past like so many other Liverpool supporters/fans, 1963 to 1990 is hardly "modern times", actually.

[James]

As a neutral, indeed someone who prefers United to Chelsea, I don't see how anyone could disagree that Chelsea outplayed United in the Champions League final. Thoroughly one-sided, all the possession and all the best chances went one way. Only Chelsea ever remotely looked like winning. It was a mugging, and it's pure revisionism to suggest otherwise.

[darren]

So Andrew do you like modern music, you know the stuff I'm talkin about, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who? Modern, there old music, just like the era when Liverpool won things, the 70's are gone mate, look back with nostalgia but don't make yourself look stupid by saying football that happened 40 years ago is 'modern'.
And Nasser, please tell me your just a fan having a laugh, easier to win nowadays?? Easier to compete in the comp without doubt, but in the 70's you only had 3 or 4 teams to beat, i.e. the champs of Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland. Now you have the best 3 or 4 teams these countries have to offer. In 1999 United had to play Barcelona and Bayern Munich in what was effectively the 1st and 2nd round, did Liverpool ever have draws like that? Bear in mind when Forest won they had to beat the mighty, and legendary Malmo in the final, yes it's so much easier now when you only have to make your way past Roma (twice), Lyon, Barcelona, and Chelsea. Seriously mate, get a grip

[Josh]

"As the penalty shoot-out is part of the test of a final, however flawed that test might be, then winning it does say something. "

" If Terry had scored United would have lost the final, so by any definition it was a stroke of luck that he ended up on his backside and missed."

"And one European Cup final win is better than three thousand semi-final appearances, let alone three."

Ah, and now we come up against the difference between actual performance, perception, and fans' desires.

As an Arsenal fan, I'd have liked to see Arsenal win the CL, and getting knocked out in the SF doesn't feel the same. As a realist, I know that losing narrowly to a team who lose by an unlucky penalty means that Arsenal were very, very close to winning the whole lot. If Utd and Chelsea had shared the trophy last year - as they should have done - then everyone would talk about how good Chelsea were; since they lost on penalties, they have become useless.

True achievement and perceived achievement are rarely the same thing in football.

Short term success can be as a result of strength, or luck, or some combination of the two. Consistent achievement is far less likely to be affected by luck, and so is a far better measure of strength.

That's why I say that a team can win the CL by getting lucky, but if they're in the last four for five seasons running, they must have something, and would just be unlucky not to have won the trophy.

The alternative leads to the conclusion that John Terry's penalty miss was wholly important, and Utd's strength, completely irrelevant.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if this is the same paper that publishes the Fink Tank? :)

[Giordano Bennetti]

Disagree with Nasser Hussain. Maybe he should stick to cricket. The Champions League is much easier to qualify for than the old European Cup...but much, much harder to win. Between 1973 and 1983 or so, if you beat the German Champions you won it. Now there are 4 top teams from every top nation, and the quality is concentrated amongst those teams - because the Champions League money makes it that way. Hence no team has won the Champions League twice on the trot.

[Andrew Thomas]

Martin Samuel said: "Liverpool have an incredible European record, but have not won the domestic championship in modern times." Er ... you're a bit wrong, there. From 1963 to 1990 they won it 13 times, actually.

[Harry Boulton]

The ECL final was a very evenly contested game in my opinion. Chelsea hit the wood work twice but then they were also saved 2 or 3 times by Petr Cech and Carrick and Giggs conspiring between them to miss some golden opportunties as well as Tevez' "miss" too. Only a hard-hack would begrudge Utd the title but someone has to lose and last year it was Chelsea's turn.

[IamJoe]

I feel a lot will depend on who the new assistant will be.
As great a coach Sir Alex is, he has also his shortcomings and insecurities, especially when it comes to Europe.

The squad is strong. And the European competition is maybe not at its best at the moment.
Real is lacking in depth. Barca going with a new setup and an inexperienced coach. Milan are not participating. Most others will need luck on their sides (or be out of domestic competition) to make up for their lack in depth.
Inter, Chelsea and United are just that little notch above everyone else at the moment and bare a surprise one of them should make it.

Internationale and Mourinho are my best bet, with the the Portugese surely very eager to show Europe what he is made off.

[Nasser Hussain]

Of course the mancs can retain it. It is an open tournament, as recent history has proven. It's easier to win the European Cup now than when Liverpool used to dominate in the late 70's & 80's. Much as fergie lauds his achievements, the European Cup has changed. Look at the stats of wins by teams on the official UEFA website you can see they make a distinction between champions league and European Cup. The present format means it is easier to win, because at the semi and quarter stages you face teams that are more "watered down" so to speak. Because many big clubs can compete in the modern format you get a spread of talent across clubs, rather than super teams. For example, if under the old format would Torres still be at Anfield. Therefore, utd would have faced a stronger club side with a Torres. Villa at Valencia ?? Ronaldinho playing in the UEFA cup ?? Hopefully the Reds will win it a 3rd time in Rome

[Oswaldo del Castillo]

From the variety of comments and assesments what can I add? But....this is football...and everybody is entitled to his/her opinion and thruths. Of all the high caliber teams I concurr that Barcelona and Milan are the ones that made most improvement. Barcelona holding the upper hand with Alves and Hleb...and the possibility of adding either Silva or Villa is scary. The fact that Ronaldihno left is more of an advantage than a misfortune. Milan will have the time to nurture him to his level by surrounding him with Pato and specially Kaka. All is well in planet football....we will enjoy, rave, get frustrated and relive the experience. Saludos...and good luck to all!

[Matt]

I don't know where this Chelsea dominated Man U in the final rubbish comes from. Man U should have been 3-0 up at HT and Chelsea down to 10 for a horrific challenge on Ronaldo. I think Man U won it last year with no out and out forward and Carrick and Rooney not at their best a lot of the time. So if you add Berba, Rooney and Carrick improving and Anderson stepping up a bit then Man U will be one of the greats of all time.

[Darren]

I have to comment on every body since the final talking about how unlucky Chelsea were in dominating the game and only a slip cost them the cup. I admit to being an United fan, but I always try to be honest about their performance, and I thought the game was very evenly matched over the 120 minutes. In the first half but for wonder goal keeping and Tevez inexplicably missing the ball, United would have been 3-0 up, and were in complete control.Then what has got to be the most fortuitous goal in the history of the European Cup (in finals anyway), with a speculative, only bothering the corner flag, shot takes 2 huge deflections and lands at the feet of Lampard, who probably wouldn't have got there first had it not been for, wait for it, that's right, a SLIP by Van Der Sar! Yes Chelsea controlled the 2nd half and they hit the woodwork twice, but didn't Giggs also have a shot headed off the line? You know, I rather think he did.In the end, it was a great game that spoke volumes about the English league, luck certainly played it's part but for both teams, Lampards goal, Tevez's miss, Terry's slip, Drogba's stupidity. Lets just say either team could have won, and lets hope next years final is as high a quality, good luck to both teams for next season