With that I will say that I follow most of the European leagues, and will always sit down for a match on TV regardless of who is playing. Hell, I will watch third-tier leagues, I love football that much. For the most part I follow my favourite players, not teams specifically. To give you insight on my non-bias, my favourite player is David Silva (Man City) and one of my favourite coaches is Roberto Mancini (Man City), so I am not strictly a United follower.
With that sorted, it has taken me a few days to reflect on the match that has been debated and argued over the past few days. What was a match up of a finals proportion, ended with bitter disappointment for the home squad. What I am referring to is the foul and subsequent dealing of a red card to Nani with roughly thirty minutes to play. I will not go into all the details of how this one act changed the game, and thus the outcome of the series, rather on some of the incidentals.
 |
| Credit: PA Photos |
First off, I did not agree with the official (yes, you all may say, 'Well, suprise, suprise! You are a Man U fan!'). Was it a foul? Certainly. The boots were high. Was it intentional? No. The replay from every angle shows that Nani was playing the ball, his head turned towards the ball, his eyes on the ball. At no point on the run up to that moment is Nani aware that Arbeloa is streaking toward that point on the pitch. It almost (almost) appears that Arbeloa runs into Nani's boot, not that Nani sticks it to Arbeloa's chest. I do not intend to say that Arbeloa was looking for a foul... this is simply a case where a high boot is run into, and the only issue is that the boot was high. No intent from either player. The Madrid players do not immediately start yelling at the ref for a foul, as players tend to do on plays such as this. Quite simply, everyone was in shock at the ref pulling a red card from his pocket.
I sat at my computer at work while the game unfolded, reading the play-by-play online. When those words came across the screen that Nani had been sent off, I stared in disbelief, mouth agape, wondering what horrible thing Nani, a usually mild-mannered player, had done. It was not until hours later that I found a replay of the incident, and became angered. Not that this one instance had changed the outcome of the game, but that a single person had ruined what could have gone down in history as a classic football match.
Here is where my analysis begins. Mourinho (an extremely classy man, who handled this event brilliantly) pounced. Up to that point, Man U verily controlled this game, and when they went a man down, Mourinho pulled the right cards, made the correct substitutions, and the players moved into the correct positions. What I am happy about, is that they did not run up the score. They did exactly enough to win. I will say, that at even strength, Real would have scored at least once. However, I think at even strength, Manchester would have scored once more as well, had both teams played the way the did before the send off.
Manchester played as well as they could with a man down. And this is where I get upset. Alexi Lalas, the international US player from long ago (1990's) sent out a message that good teams train and are prepared for red cards, and indicated that Manchester should have grouped together and known what to do. I have respect for Alexi in that he was a decent player, in the way that American players can be considered 'good.' However he has turned into a media mouth-piece, whereas he believes his experience playing (and managing?) allows him to make good opinions. I am not going to debate his quality on the pitch, but the quality of his comment. There is not a single club team in the world, less several national teams, that would have played well a man down against Real Madrid. Manchester United played better with ten men than the US Men's National team from any year, would have played against Real Madrid. While it is unexpected that you will lose a player during a game, I am certain that these professional footballers still knew how to play the game. But as the saying goes, 'If you are a man down, then someone will be open...' How often do teams scrimmage a man down? Who do you remove from the pitch? A forward? A midfielder? Which midfielder? Do you run the scrimmage eleven times, removing a different person each time? We all know (as Mr. Lalas should) that you prepare differently, in different formations, depending on the team you are playing.
I am certain that each of the ten remaining players knew where they needed to play, and how they needed to play. They are professionals, having been playing their entire lives. Hell, Mr. Giggs was playing in his 1,000 senior game. I am sure that he has played in a fair number of those 1,000 with a man down, and knew how to respond. To suggest as Mr. Lalas has that they should have regrouped and played better, is a ridiculous comment.
To which I will end mine. The episode was an unfortunate event, and I think it was unfortunate that UEFA had to comment that the call was correct. I understand that referees need to make judgments and decisions, sometimes in the heat of situations, in very little time, surrounded by many angry individuals. But this was not the case in any sense of the word. And considering the magnitude of the game and teams, caution should have been used. In short: the ref made an incorrect call.
I think it would be safe to say that it will be unlikely that he will ref a game with either of these two teams in the future. While UEFA said he will continue to ref, I just can't see him in a match with Man U or Real.
