Man Utd v A C Milan

[Highlander]

To be fair I think he'd struggle to get into our team. He's far too fit, far too quick and far too skillful

[stoop]

quote:Originally posted by Scunner

Superb display. At times like this I like to find a Stoop quote  

I said at the start of the season they would miss Ronaldo

I stand by that! They have won the tin pot Carling/Cola whatever it's called this year cup and nothing else yet.

Take Rooney out of the team and they struggle big time - look at Wolves over the weekend - they should have lost that but got lucky.

Ronaldo and Tevez would have made a lot of difference to them this season.

Time will tell of course

[javacoffee]

Mmm! Was at the game last night, Milan gave us an easy ride. I was sat next to the away supporters and they were furious with the Milan performance. As for taking Rooney out of the team we've had all that nonsense since Best, Charleton, Law, Macari, Whiteside, Robson, Cantona, Keane, Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Van Nistlrooy, Ronaldo and now Rooney.

It's amazing how lucky we have been over the years, Rooney was so lucky to have received such a great cross to head in his first, and how lucky was that pass from Nani. The dog eater was dead lucky to have scored and Fletchers goal well, it was lucky the ball hit him on the head when it did or who knows what could have happened.

However, Ronaldo and Tevez have been very unlucky so far this season, all of those lucky players at United already have a medal this season and have a shout at winning a couple more. I do miss Ronaldo as he was a very lucky player for us, I'd have him back tomorrow, but I don't think we would be lucky enough to get him back.

Look at the Wolves lad, Vokes, so unlucky to have missed a sitter, I bet if he was in a United shirt he would have been lucky and buried that sitter. Luckily for us he was playing for Wolves, hey more luck for United, I feel guilty now. Luckily it won't last long as I'm going to watch Sky Sports news all day and listen to how lucky we have been to have Rooney playing for United.

[Scunner]

Interesting post JC, although I don't actually recall anyone saying Man U were nothing if Macari didn't play. Lou Macari?? He was a good player but looks a little out of place in that otherwise illustrious list

[Highlander]

When I was setting the Bill Shankly poser, I read that he had actively tried to buy Lou Macri but he obviously went to Man U. Its' reported that Shanks went round telling his players he only wanted him for the reserves anyway:D

I also read that in the 1965-66 season, Liverpool finished as champions using just 14 players and two of those only played a handful of games in the 1965-66 season, Liverpool finished as champions using just 14 players and two of those only played a handful of games. That is amazing.

Sorry for straying off topic

[javacoffee]

Well Gordon Hill was my hero during that period but most of the ex players recall Macari as a lynchpin, he was also the highest paid player at that time, on £250 per week, shocking.

 Luck, is it a tangible entity or could a lucky or unlucky event be simply chaos theory in action. Vokes for example appeared to want to kick the ball towards the net but failed, was he just striking the ball in the general direction of the net, which was 6 yards away, and allowing chaos theory, lady luck, to influence his action. He missed but the ball could have gone anywhere, in the net, off the post and into the net, off a deflection and in the net and so on.

Whereas Scholes goal appeared to be not attributed to luck at all, Scholes appeared calm and calculated in his action, he took aim shot and scored. This allows us to say that Vokes was unlucky but Scholes goal was neither lucky or unlucky, he meant it. Luck had nothing to do with United winning but everything to do with Wolves losing.

I'll go and have a lie down now.

[Scunner]

quote:Originally posted by javacoffee

Whereas Scholes goal appeared to be not attributed to luck at all

Was Scholes' goal in the first leg against Milan not lucky then?

[javacoffee]

Yes, that goal was lucky as it could have gone anywhere, i'd say that luck had everthing to do with united equalising in the first leg. Milan's first in that game was also lucky in that it was deflected into the net, none of the other goals were either lucky or unlucky.

It's a funny one, Wolves were seen to be unlucky and didn't get what they deserved, an equaliser, and United were seen to have been lucky to have scored and also undeserving of the win.

It's the same in golf, if you are putting then you are aiming to hole the putt so luck has nothing to do with it if you then go on to hole the putt. However, if you miss the putt then you are deemed to have been unlucky not to have holed the putt. Who is more deserving, the guy who has aimed and holed or the guy who has aimed and missed. If i like the guy who missed the putt then I am more inclined to sympathise with him and say 'unlucky' If i don't like the guy who missed then i would also say.' unlucky.' but not mean it.

So what is luck? Is it a real thing that you can quantify, be certain that luck will influence an outcome, or a poor interpretation of an outcome that you don't like.

[Highlander]

Forgive me javacoffee but I don't think that the lie down has made much difference

[javacoffee]

I agree.