It is often said of wars that the winners write the history, with the loser's perspective and views ignored and consigned to the dark annals of history.
The same is true of football in a way. Once John Terry slipped and Nicholas Anelka’s tame penalty was beaten away by Edwin Van Der Sar, the manuscript was drawn up and the winner’s version was produced by the media.
What will be remembered of the 2008 Champions League Final? Ronaldo’s brilliance and Ferguson’s genius. But the fact that United were outplayed for most of the game, that Chelsea hit the woodwork and should have won the game in normal time? Pushed to the annals.
The image of Ferguson as a true managerial great has been peddled by all and sundry after United’s victory. It appears that it is a form of sacrilege to question a man who has managed the same club for 20 years, won countless domestic titles and won two European Cups. Well condemn me to hell and ready the trident because that’s what I’m about to do.
Let me make it clear that I don’t doubt that Ferguson is one of the greatest British managers the game has ever seen, his record speaks for itself. It is more the idea that he is almost untouchable and beyond scrutiny that I take issue with.
Should Ferguson be given so much praise for defeating a team managed by a man like Avram Grant? After all, Grant was ushered into the Chelsea job after the departure of Mourinho with very little qualifications and top level European management experience. No one gave Grant a chance at the start of the season, and he must be commended for doing what he did with us.
Ferguson came very close to being bettered by a man who was in his first top level European job and who seemingly didn’t have the support of the whole dressing room. You cant really attribute such a feat to genius, just merely competence.
United did dominate the opening stages of the game, and really, they should have been out of sight before Frank Lampard scored. But, for the rest of the game it was a different story. We dominated and should have won it. Drogba hit the bar and we had numerous other chances to put the game to bed.
If Barcelona had been a little less profligate in their finishing, United might not even have been at the final. Barcelona played very well in the Semi-Final and outplayed United for large periods of the game.
We’ve seen this before. In the 1999 Final, United were outplayed for virtually most of the match (sound familiar?) and nicked it right at the death in the most extraordinary fashion. Scholler and Jancker both hit the woodwork for Bayern, before Sheringham and Solskjaer completed that comeback.
When examining the circumstances of both finals, it is hard not to see something else at work. The 1999 Final fell on what would have been the 90th birthday of Sir Matt Busby, who won United their first European Cup back in 1968. The 2008 Final was 50 years since the Munich Air Disaster. Destiny, it seems, was on United’s side.
Indeed, such a view was given much credence by the media, who seemed to suggest that it was morally right that United win. Of course we were cast as the villains of the piece (as we so often are).
Most of this piece deals in hypotheticals and can be read as the biased discourse of a bitter Chelsea fan (guilty as charged), but I think the point is worth making that, especially in the case of Ferguson, the line between ‘greatness’ and total failure is a very thin one. Sometimes, just a few centimetres.
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
You raise some interesting points, the difference between success and failure is often too close to call.
However, I think your Chelsea leanings do betray your argument a little, that United “were outplayed for most of the game” is stretching it a bit I think (although this is, of course, subjective) and you even state yourself that United should have had the game buried within the first half an hour or so. You also state that Barcelona outplayed United for vast periods of the semi-final – but for all my thinking I cannot really recall Van der Sar having to make any saves, or indeed Barca even creating any clear chances themselves. Barca might have dominated possession but this itself is fairly useless if you do precious little in an attacking sense when you have it.
Yes, United rode their luck in ’99, but remember who’s decision it was to make those two substitutions in the first place. Also worth bearing in mind is the fact that this wasn’t the first time that season in which United had scored two goals in the last minute to win a game. When luck begins to happen more regularly than it perhaps should then you have to credit the manager with creating and moulding a team capable of such spectacular feats.
Putting it down to mere “destiny” is also not giving credit where it’s due really – after all, a lot of people talked of “destiny” in 2002 when the final was due to be in Glasgow with Ferguson set to retire. When the man has won an European final with Aberdeen against Real Madrid then I start to believe that he knows what he’s doing and deserves any credit that’s coming to him.
Anyway, if it wasn’t for Riise then United would have been beating Liverpool in the final anyway!!! ;)
3 months ago
Thanks for the feedback Matt. I really feel we deserved to win in Moscow but then again a Man U fan could argue the opposite based on the opening to the game as you said (Essien at RB was not a very wise decision). I'm biased but in the end most football fans are partisan towards one team or another.
Like I said in the article, I dont doubt that Ferguson is a great manager, its just (to me) the media don't seem to take into account the fact that luck also played a role. I'm criticising them more than I am Ferguson and Utd, and I hope I was able to convey that in my piece.
I'm not attributing United's victory to just luck and 'destiny', but just mentioning that it seemed to play a part. I'm not trying to belittle Utd as a team, far from it. They're the team I respect most in the Premier League and have some very gifted players.
And as you mention at the end of your comment, I am of course eternally grateful to Riise for THAT goal. It was about time we got some luck against Liverpool in the Champions League!
3 months ago
Aren't you forgetting that united cut chelsea's defence in half when attacking in the first half.that lampards goal was a double deflection and that chelsea were restricted to shooting from 30 yards in the second half?
3 months ago
I agree that Chelsea were unlucky but must also agree with Matt that your Chelsea feelings has somewhat unbalanced your argument - Perhaps you're looking back on the final with streaming eyes like JT?
United dominated the first half. Chelsea were the more adventurous in the 2nd. But apart from hitting the post you created very little.
At the end of the day if Terry had scored his penalty United would have felt they should have one the game afte some of Cech's save and JT clearing off the line from giggs.
Its a good read but when talking about a game with so much at stake its hard to stay objective and look at the facts clearly.
3 months ago
you have to be in the vicinty of a moment where luck can play a part if luck ever plays a hand in your glory. you make your own luck in football. in the 99 final they didnt roll over like so many teams do. against chelsea they again did not roll over, and now who is the champion? poor chelsea fans how long til they can forget....
from 3 months ago
I'll never forget.
write a new comment