We could have won by 4 or 5

Arsenal's suicidal approach had already started... I rewatched the match on MUTV... You were pushing very high from kick off in the 2nd half.

You did notice we were attacking you when the 1st goal went in, right?

The approach became more desperate after United scored. In the first half, the press that we put on didn't allow you to play out, even when United did we had it covered. After United scored, Arsenal only left one player back, which meant that if United evaded the press, Arsenal were screwed. So it proved to be.

One of United's very rare forays forward.

One of United's very rare forays forward.
-------------------------
You seem to think that is not part of a tactic?

We were massively cautious... thanks, in part, to having Rafael, Jones, Evans, Rojo, Blind and then Shaw off injured, more or less the majority of our defensive players.

We setup to soak up pressure, attack when it was as safe as possible... we got our goal after a few half chances (Di Maria, form distance... Smalling from the corner)...

You might not like such tactics, but to wave them away as if we were just running around without a clue is naive at best.

These are tactics.

I agree to an extent that poor finishing isn't down to luck, but at the end of the day, United were fortunate to come away with the win.

------------------------------------------

If poor finishing isn't luck, in what sense were United fortunate?

I look forward to the reply to that one Conor.

If poor finishing isn't luck, in what sense were United fortunate?
_________________

Are you wumming?

United did not win on merit, they won because on the day Arsenal couldn't hit a barn door. They were fortunate to catch Arsenal on a bad day in that department.

However, Arsenal cannot say they were unlucky because they are the ones who ballsed it up.

Clear?

I don't think that United would have even looked like scoring if it wasn't for that first goal.
_______________

Hard to say...LVG would no doubt have changed things if we still needed to score. It's too easy to assume that the game would have followed the same pattern for 90+ minutes. Very few matches do.

United did not win on merit, they won because on the day Arsenal couldn't hit a barn door. They were fortunate to catch Arsenal on a bad day in that department.

------------------------------------------------------

redmisty

I was responding explicitly to a comment made by another poster. But seeing as you decided to respond in defence of him I will ask you: is this logical?

Poor finishing isn't to do with luck...but United were lucky Arsenal couldn't finish.

is this logical?

Poor finishing isn't to do with luck...but United were lucky Arsenal couldn't finish.
_________________

Perfectly logical as I explained, no? I wasn't having a go at you - just wasn't sure if it was a serious question because the answer is so obvious.

Arsenal can have good or bad luck. United can have good or bad luck. United's good luck is not necessarily due to Arsenal's bad luck.

As I said before, Arsenal were not unlucky, they finished poorly. United were lucky that Arsenal finished poorly. I honestly don't get what is tripping you up!

By phrasing it as "poor finishing isn't to do with luck" you are making the issue murky by not explaining whose luck you are talking about. Luck is not a zero sum game - both teams can be lucky at the same time! E.g. because it stopped snowing before kick-off or whatever. Or because both teams haad star players pass late fitness tests, etc..

No, didn't claim that just pointing out why we were so bare for the 2nd goal. Wenger has made it clear he doesn't have much interest in defence so as soon as you went 1 up I didn't fancy much in the way of a fightback.

**
You mean you are 5hite and you know you are?

Why do you still entertain your manager...after all these years?