Bashmachkin wrote:Of course, Fabregas is only saying that Arsenal can win both the Champions League and the Premiership - he isn't presuming anything or hyping Arsenal in the least.
So saying that they are ready to win the double, on the basis of beating a poor Milan side, isn't hype?
Fine. There's no point trying to change the mind of the religious.
And last night, after the game, he was level-headed and humble enough to say 'this is just the beginning. We are now in the quarter-finals but we have not done anything. It is just one more step'. Which motivating words, which words of leadership, only mirror his match-winning performance on the pitch.
As I said straight away, he was excellent. The fact that his immediate reaction was more tempered and sensible than his later one only shows that someone has spoken to him in the meantime and told him what to say.
Incidentally, many news sites seem to have rubbed these post match comments, replacing them with today's comments and more sensational headlines - perhaps part of an unceasing media drive bent on undermining Arsenal by portraying them them as an arrogant group of foreigners.
Don't be ridiculous. Look at the adjectives they use to describe Arsenal's performance.
In fact, Milan have been more lavish in their praise for Arsenal - Kaladze calling Arsenal a 'great team', whilst 'Adebayor has proven to be a great player who managed to hold the team up'; Ancelotti praising Arsenal's 'great courage' and saying they can reach the final.
Well, they're hardly going to say 'We played so badly that any half decent team would have beaten us', are they?
And this was a Milan team whose record this season domestically has been very similar to their record last season (1.65 points per game compared with 1.79), when the Italian league was of a poorer standard; a Milan team who, considering their standard over the last two seasons, have been on a good run recently (in their last ten games before last night, they drew away at Arsenal, and went unbeaten in the league, picking up on average 2.1 points per game);
Really? I saw a side who'd only won one of their last 6 games and who'd already lost several games at home this season.
a Milan team featuring eight of the eleven players that started against Man Utd ten months ago
Irrelevant, since almost all of the players played a lot worse against Arsenal than they did against Man U. Them being the same players is irrelevant - these Arsenal players are mostly the same as those who got trounced by Man United. Fact is, players can have good and bad games, and very good players can occasionally play very badly. Just as Arsenal did against Man U, which means Man U can't claim any great credit from winning and winning well, Milan were against Arsenal, which has the same implication for Arsenal.
- and the three changes arguably provided them with a more solid defence with Maldini in for Jankulovski, a more potent and mobile attack with Pato alongside Inzaghi, and though Milan missed Seedorf's creativity and link-up play in the middle, still Milan didn't have a lot of the ball after the first twenty minutes, Arsenal pushed them back and dictated the midfield, and rendered Ambrosini and Gattuso, and Pirlo too, entirely ineffective.
Pato was poor, missing the best chance of the first half with a weak trap and unconvincing shot. Inzaghi, as per usual, does nothing if you don't provide him with goalscoring opportunities. With Kaka being so poor (as he has been for a lot of this season from what I've read, I don't watch Serie A with any regularity), Seedorf's absence was immense.
And Milan had plenty of possession in the first 20 minutes of the second half too. Which would indicate to me that Arsenal's superiority was an athletic issue first and a tactical issue second. In both halfs, Milan started the brighter but Arsenal had the overall domination of possession and territory. Having watched the game from start to finish I could see that it was Arsenal's superior speed in getting to the ball that gave them the edge, and that Milan clearly knew they didn't have the pace in defence to play high up the pitch so they let Arsenal have the ball and only tried to take it off them within thirty yards of their own goal. This was their gameplan, and it worked for a lot of the game as Arsenal were restricted to long range shots for the most part.
I said to my companion during the first half that Milan were only defending the final third, and that it could backfire because it means that if someone beats two men then it's almost certainly a goal. As it was, Fabregas only beat one man before placing his shot, but it took until 84 minutes were on the clock. Let's face it, Milan's gameplan worked until they ran out of steam, as so many do against Arsenal. That's over thirty goals they've scored this season in the last 15 minutes of the match.
So if Milan weren't at their best, they haven't been there for a couple of seasons now, and have still been the team to beat in Europe, always able to use their experience, to raise their game and dictate the play. Besides from the fact that Arsenal's win makes them the first English team to beat Milan at the San Siro, the extent to which they controlled the game was very impressive.
No, it impressed you. To me, it was a team struggling to break down a classically deep Italian defence, and managing it due to a series of errors from Milan and their own superior fitness.
However many shots they took from inside the box, Arsenal had a number of clear chances through the game - the difference of a yard is no real difference, Arsenal were constantly in space on the edge of Milan's area.
What clear chances? Milan had a header from a corner, Pato's C0ck up from Kaka's crossfield pass, Arsenal had Eboue's slice and then Adebayor's goal.
Arsenal were not constantly in space on the edge of Milan's area - they were frequently passing the ball around comfortably until they got to the edge of the area, when they struggled to break down the deep, conservative Italian defence until late on.
Fabregas, who now has four goals in the CL this season, gave a big game performance and dictated the play in the midfield, assisted by Flamini, Hleb, and I thought Diaby was strong too, especially early on.
I thought Diaby was Cr@p - didn't create anything, gave the ball away too much, offered little defensively (although he didn't really have much to do there). Hleb's ball retention was great, but he created only good opportunities, not clear chances. Flamini had a very good game, but the Milan midfield were so poor that it's hard to judge. As I've said already, Fabregas was excellent. Best player on the pitch.
Really, did you even watch the game, or just highlights? It could have gone the other way, but the better team won. Yet it seems for the Arsenal hypesters that isn't enough, this has to be portrayed as a historic moment and one of the best performances ever seen. It wasn't even that good a game...
wrote:I assume this is the Arsenal have won the CL thread...
..."but Milan are Milan regardless". Don't forget the whole thing shazlx! Congrats on the win! Haven't watched your game, but certainly will later on. 
Home
