But I didn't say it wasn't serious!!

It was the first game of the group stages. there wasn't any real pressure on either team to gave their 100%.


A "bit" ashamed, and mostly because we ended up with a point.

I do want to think it was the best possible option, but a part of me thinks we could've done more to share more possession, shots on goal, corners, etc with Barca.


Hi!
How about making that +999 to Nesta and +1 to Pato for a nice, quick goal? be generous!

I'm sorry but I really can't believe what's been written here! Last night we were total underdogs with the vast majority writing us off even before we took to the pitch! We stepped on to the field and scored the fifth quickest goal in CL history and rocked arguably the greatest club side in the world and probably should have been 2-0 up after 17 minutes. We defended stoutly and fairly, which is something not many teams are capable of, and we left there with a very valuable point and two goals scored at Camp Nou - how many teams have done that in recent times?

As for being negative, well when you face a team as technically brilliant as Barca you have to play to your strengths. There was no way we could go toe to toe with our side as we're not set up to play that way, but we had a game plan, stuck to it and it worked - Barca's goals were through a mistake and from a dubious freekick while our fiirst ripped them apart and our second was something we had practiced. Yes Barca had loads more possession, but they do against every team, especially at Camp Nou. If that's negative then I'd love to see a positive!

Even more; but in the end, both gave 100%. Or you wanna say Milan or Barcelona played with half of their strength?

Co-workers were talking about the game today ... They all seemed ecstatic that Milan stopped Barca at home. The Barca fanatics of them stress on Barca playing the best football and dominating that game ...

I just sit there and reminisce on these magical Champions League nights ... A dream really when you hear ManU and RM 'fans' claiming Milan has Champions League pedigree. Well duh, where do you think this #7 that we carry on our shirts represent

It even made me think ... If this Milan, aging in its anchors and with just 1 official match under its belt could tame a dream team Barcelona like that (I stress strongly on dream team ) ... We were the only team that was yet to face this Barcelona, this was our chance to shine ... We didn't shine, but we showed the world that we can sustain the pressure of the worlds best.

That said, I am sure Barcelona are much stronger than this ... They had defensive problems from the start and were just in 5 official games under their belts so they weren't exactly synced ... However, my Milan still has weapons in its arsenal that did not make a showing yesterday; If Barca fans thought Pato and TS is all Milan could deliver, then those fans should really start thinking about namely Robinho and Taiwo ... I believe come November, Taiwo would have settled well, to deploy against Barca's right wing. That is one of their best attacking posts, but their weakest defensive cover. Barca defend as a team, even their attackers ... That's why this flaw doesn't come out a lot.

Ofcourse .. We have to be with a healthy Nesta & TS, or else

Full Match Highlights (HD):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWY_7FEanU&hd=1

Oh, all right. Since you asked nicely. +999 to Nesta and +1 cookie to

And to R7 on general principle.

GOOAAAAAAAAAL

I just dont get it. When Italian teams play defensively its negative football or anti-football. And when any other team plays like that they are praised for their defensive abilities. Last season when we played against Tottenhum at their home. The only they did was defend the WHOLE game, and yet nobody said 'anti-football'. I remember the game in nou camp where sheva scored a goal but was disallowed cos puyol went down like a sack of potatoes at the slightest of touch by sheva. That whole game Eto'o was chasing cafu down the flanks.

IMO, our team was solid except the few mistakes. And I'm proud of them. Forza Nesta Forza Milan

The tactics were phenomenal. I give allegri alot of credit

The CSA (canadian soccer association) is going to be breaking down this game in terms of tactics (first milan game !! No more EPL Sh*t !! ) at our meeting next week



PS: Oh and I hope you guys don't mind, but I'm stealing some of your analysis points Especially you Han



@Fillipo: I fully agree with you, its nice to see our squad really fight to the end instead of just giving up when we go down a goal.

We did not play negative or anti-football. We played a defensive setup when we did not have the ball! WTF??!!! What're you supposed to do against Barca when you don't have the ball....go and attack Messi so that if he beats on you one-on-one?

God...I'm fed up of the disrespect shown to what was a superlative European performance. Allegri was brilliant...our team also played well.

We made the 'pundits' eat their words...

BEFORE MATCH:
"Look at that Milan....they can speak about past pedigree...but they're a team full of has-been players past their prime and they're going to suffer against the pace of this unbeatable Barcelona outfit who will be eager to take revenge over their Sociedad match!!"

DURING/AFTER MATCH:
"There is no substitute for experience. The Milan veterans handed out a masterclass of defending and stuck to their gameplan and did not allow Barca any leeway. Barca had all the possession but were just moving the ball sideways etc etc. Nesta is the best centreback etc etc. Seedorf was just brilliant etc etc..."


Full credit to the Ragazzi...AND the old guard. We took their strengths and negated it. We took their weaknesses and exploited it. WELL DONE BOYS!!

Wait up Blue. I will be posting a detailed analysis + Ratings later in the day.

I was afraid that Allegri would play with Antonini instead of Zamborotta, now im sure that Seedorf is a 30 min player and you can use him in the 2nd half if you need someone to control the ball and keep it in Milan side.

http://youtu.be/34ar70QEk_E

So, now would be a good time to throw up a couple of nice questions to stir up some further debate on this highly interesting encounter. I've been having this debate with a bunch of my friends. And the opinions are quite divided on one question, though the first one is almost universally agreed upon. The questions:

Pato vs. Messi
Now one may say we cheated and began the game before Barcelona players were ready, but still, this was one heck of a goal. One of the very best you'll ever see, everything went perfect for Pato, from the misjudged clearance from the Barca player to the ball landing on his feet, and then how he sliced the defense apart and ran towards the goal, and finally showing Valdez for the pathetic keeper he is. This is my best part. Anyway, the question that arises is this:

Had Messi scored this goal, would it have been universally acclaimed and pundits would have regarded this as his best yet, or at least one of his very best goals? Few TV/media people I checked praised Pato as much as he deserved. It was more about Barcelona being stunned, and not the guy who stunned them. Would it have been the same case with Messi, or would they have remembered and hyped this goal up for centuries?

Nesta vs. Silva
I know, I know, both got deserved praise for the performance. Nesta though got more applause, maybe because he's Italian, or maybe because he's an established player, or maybe because he is on right wrong side of 30 now and still can cut it at the top most level. All deserved notions, and it was a masterclass performance from our CB. But there was another CB that came to two to play, and he played just as well AND scored the goal that will make people remember this match. If it weren't for Silva, we'd be staring at least at a 2-1 defeat. Or some would say 3-1 when Messi ran at the heart of our defense on the 90th minute and almost go through for a sure goal, if not for a cool and composed tackled by Silva.

The point that arises is which one was better, it's just a simple question of giving one player 8 and another 9. What would you guys give Nesta, and how would you rate Silva, not in terms of what they brought to the table (because that was epic), but how the fared in purely numerical terms. Nesta I thought was a bit at fault for the first goal, with Abate being a bigger culprit, and Zambrotta the biggest (he was found watching the match without a ticket as he lost the man he was asked to mark). Absolutely dreadful moment, even though on the whole he was decent enough.

But anyway, if it weren't for Silva, we'd probably have forgotten about this match by now - not just for the header goal, but also for smooth, smooth defending, which IMO as more effortless than Nesta. But that's a given, he's years younger than our #13, and Nesta was just as good or even better when he was Silva's age. So the question being, who would you say was the best defender on our team - and subsequently in the match?

Simple questions, tough answers. Fire away, please! Could be an interesting debate!

The media would have collectively orgasmed if Messi scored like Pato did.

I don't think there's any point comparing a player who hasn't fully realised his potential with one who is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time.

I'm not sure we'll ever see Pato break the 30 goal barrier for us, so even if he scores a wonder goal in any competition, well, players score wonder goals all the time.

But few score several of them alone.

I want more from Pato - I want him to realise how good he can be and achieve it. I don't want him fannying around at a level of 'potential' for the rest of his career.

But then that's debatable isn't it? Depending on who you asked, Messi has reached his potential playing in a set team and in one of the weakest (at least defensively) leagues in the world. His NT and performances against strong teams aren't nearly as good as they are - they are open for everyone to see.

You can argue it's not his fault he's playing in such conditions, but then again, I rate Maradona higher than Pele in that he at least played in a tough and technical league and lived to tell the tale. Overall Pele may still be a better player and visionary than Maradona. But he never played in Serie A - the best league of his/their time.

He did take it well, pity his touch was missing on his 2nd chance, could have had 2 for the night then.

Epic ...did the same person wrote that?

It's basically me paraphrasing what Carlton Palmer was saying...

Yeah that stinking little hypocrite. It was more fun watching his facial expressions at half and full time than the match itself for me. I was really looking forward to it after Silva's goal. The creep went in with 3-0 Barcelona at the start, while his other friend said that he was expecting 2-0 in favor of the Catalans.

I don't know what's more stupid, thinking Milan will let in 3 goals, or thinking that we won't even put in 1. I mean, we practically have the best defense in the (club football) world. Period. And couple that with our stinking midfield, and our CBs and full backs have to work doubly hard. Against big sides we struggle for possession, and that bulk of the burden falls right on the defense. They are put under pressure. And they cope with it more often than not.

Give this midfield to Barcelona, Real or any other high-profile team and see how their defense copes! Ha!

Pato vs. Messi - Servbot basically answered that one.

Nesta vs. Silva - If you really want to be critical watch the first goal and look at Thiago's positioning, he was trying to block the cut back but Abbiatti was also in the position to cover the cut back. IMO Thiago should have stopped the ballgoing across the goal, other than that he did have a sterling game.

I also think that Thiago has learned a lot from the master that is Sandro Nesta and they seem to compliment each other like Franco Baresi and Paolo Maldini.

Against Barça Nesta was simply outstanding, so based on that match Nesta easily. Also that very same match Pato has been outstanding, being the main threat of the day, so also he beats Messi based on that match.

If only Pato has better support than a non-existant Cassano, for example Robinho, who knows what happened...

Trying to fault Cassano for it is a bit of an excuse for me. I don't think Robinho could have done much better, yes he brings more energy, but the problem was th midfield, we just couldn't get it out of our area unless we punted it. Barca pressed us a lot, the pass from midfield when we won it back was sloppy at best, so Cassano and Pato basically had nothing to go by then the long ball, which we all know that that will never work with Cassano since height is not on his side and neither is speed.

We all knew Cassano wasn't the right man for this kind of game where we wouldn't be controlling possession, and that's when Cassano is the most dangerous. An extra mid (Aquilani), would have worked a million times better then another striker

Your post makes sense han, but still, Cassano was extra-poor against Barça. He couldn't control the ball, make a right pass, get involved in the game... In other words, he was useless. I'm certain that Robinho could have done something more.

I'm not saying Cassano was good or anything close to it. But making an excuse out of him is just not going to help anyone, certainly not us. We needed a better game plan in terms of transitioning the ball from the defence to attack. Cassano was poor yes, but should Robinho have been there, he would have still most likely ended up on his own whenever he recieved the ball which is what kept happening to both Cassano and Pato. In fact I don't get why they were playing so far apart from each other. They clearly needed each other's support since the midfield wasn't willing to push up to help them

Robinho would have done better because of his immense workrate and energy he would never be so non-existant Cassano was that match. I really was sad when I heard Robinho couldn't play.


Cassano doesn't have the workrate and energy Robinho does, so the latter would have been all over the place and no be so far apart from Pato. Say what you want about Robinho (and his finishing), but he always plays well and is a huge support for any attacker he has played with. Robinho plays well with everyone, anywhere.

I'd say Robinho could have done tons more if he was fit. Tons, I say. Cassano works best when he is there in a working system, a rolling midfield and he just slots in to provide that extra spark of creativity - whether it is a slick goal or a sublime through ball for one. Play him in a stagnant midfield, and he'll make it even more stagnant.

Robinho could have been a 100 times a player than him against Barcelona, just for the simple fact that he hustles.

It is more or less pointless discussing what Robinho would and could have done.

Uhmmmm no, not really. As it's clear how Robinho plays and how that is different from Cassano. For example when we go back to Ronaldinho who disappears vs big teams also. Cassano comes closer to that than others. Robinho on the other hand is the opposite of Ronaldinho/them. His energy, workrate, movement is immense, and he is quick too. Try to let someone like that disappear in a match. For a reason Robinho always links up midfield with attack.

Though in the end what isn't pointless on here, as long as people enjoy discussing it, why not?

I'm sorry, your post made me laugh out loud. It may be "clear" how Robinho is playing, but what's the purpose of dreaming what he'd do instead of Cassano. It's not a mathematical equation we are talking about; it's pretty much unpredictable, and even if it is, there is still no point to it.

I think most of the talk here isn't pointless, but I always count the woulda coulda shoulda talk as pointless. It may help you in some way, but making some definite statements - that's impossible with the "if's"

Still waiting, Cap'n.