here we are

PAOLO MALDINI is a one-club family man who juggles his time between cementing his legendary status and his role as director of the Milan Foundation, a charitable organisation designed to help socially disadvantaged children.

Wayne Rooney, on the other hand, is widely portrayed as a Shrek-like turncoat who varies his time between saving English football and being castigated for corrupting the nation’s youth with his foul mouth. Stylistically, one is Armani and the other Army & Navy, which is why watching them bridge the generation gap at the San Siro was such enthralling viewing.

Would youth taunt experience or would it be the night that Rooney’s callowness was exposed by a man old enough to be his father? Maldini still likes to gallop forward, and if he churns the turf rather than scorches it these days, he still has a presence. Not quite the swashbuckling star of yore, then, but neither is he a knee-buckled icon living on past glories.

The first half was his. This was a night when Manchester United needed someone to eke their way into folklore, as Roy Keane had done against Juventus in Turin in 1999, but Rooney was forced to drop deeper and deeper in search of a kick while Cristiano Ronaldo was dominated by Maldini’s ability to play like a souped-up Peter Pan.

The stature of Maldini should not be underestimated. While it is often said that Rooney is no respecter of reputation, it is worth remembering that last summer, on holiday in Miami, an awestruck Wes Brown asked the man with the tousled hair and doe-eyes for an autograph. This is the Maldini effect. He commands respect, not only for what he has done for 20 years at Milan, but for what he is still doing at the ripe age of 36.

As Rooney drifted, eventually to the periphery and beyond, United craved his spark.

So what if he is bad for kids? Like Keane, he is at his best when teetering on the edge of self-destruction, but he looked subdued, unsure of his role, almost resigned.

United needed the Rooney who had played with fire against Arsenal at Highbury, but it appeared as though he had believed this week’s headlines about how his rough edges were doing for the nation’s youth what junk food and Eminem had achieved.

The goal was coming as United’s big players failed to dredge their core for a big game. Rui Costa and Andrea Pirlo took control of midfield, Ronaldo began shooting from the sort of range that would have troubled The Jackal in Frederick Forsyth’s novel and United were unable to expose the war-weary limbs of the veteran left back.

It might have been different had Ryan Giggs’s first-half drive bounced the other side of a post, but like their talismanic captain, Milan improved with each passing minute.

Defeat against a side of this calibre is no disgrace, but Ferguson’s record in Europe, 1999 notwithstanding, is a greasy smear on his record. Can he really be called a great when one — slightly fortuitous — victory, in his solitary European Cup final, is all he has to show for his travails? It is to be hoped that Rooney and Ronaldo learn from the chastening experience. It has been proved that, contrary to one school of thought, you can win things with kids, and Rooney was lustrous at Euro 2004. However, it is Maldini who has the chance to add to a cabinet chock full of European medals.

If Rooney wants to silence those harbingers of doom predicting a troubled future, he might look back on this game and the efforts of Maldini, and decide that the way forward is to settle down and have quiet nights in for the next 20 years. Then again, maybe not.





THEY have grown painfully accustomed to disappointment in the European Cup in the six years since they lifted the trophy, but for Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United, the sense of anguish never diminishes. The United manager had dared to say that they would win the competition, if only they could overturn a first-leg deficit against AC Milan, but the overriding sensation as he and his players trudged off the field at the San Siro last night was a familiar one of having fallen short of the required standard.

Exactly how short was open to debate. Ferguson talked afterwards of the “thin line” that separates success and failure at this level, but for all that, it might as well have been a chasm. While he was right to cite the chances missed in both legs, particularly by a ring-rusty Ruud van Nistelrooy last night, he will know deep down that his team were not good enough to beat this formidable AC Milan side, whose quality proved the difference over three hours of high-class football.

Ultimately, the tie was won and lost in the first leg at Old Trafford, when Hernán Crespo seized on an error by Roy Carroll. United dreamt that they could repeat their heroics against Juventus in the semi-finals in Turin in 1999, but it was too much to ask that Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney, at this early stage of their development, would flourish against such a vastly experienced Milan team, who secured victory in the 61st minute when Crespo, on a season-long loan from Chelsea, headed his second goal of the tie.

That goal extinguished United’s hopes of emulating their unforgettable comeback in Turin, but such a feat had rarely seemed to be on the cards for Ferguson’s team. Ryan Giggs struck a post in the first half before Van Nistelrooy, short of sharpness after a three-month injury layoff, wasted the first of two presentable opportunities. The damning statistic was that United had failed to manage a shot on target, with Rooney and Ronaldo, in particular, guilty of trying their luck from distance as desperation grew.

“I would say there were six outstanding chances over the two games and I think Milan probably had two or three of them and scored two goals,” Ferguson said. “Their ratio of taking chances was far better than ours and that’s the thin line I’m talking about. There’s not really a big degree between the teams, but I think experience was always going to count tonight. They just had that bit of extra experience, with [Paolo] Maldini and Cafu, whereas maybe our decision-making was a bit rash at times.”

At least United did not make life any harder than it already was. Their first-half performance had everything that Ferguson would have wanted — discipline, determination, quality in attacking areas — except the goal that would have cancelled out Milan’s advantage. Giggs, hitting the foot of a post after escaping Cafu for the only time in the tie, and Van Nistelrooy, blazing over the crossbar after Rooney’s knockdown, had missed chances, but Ferguson felt confident enough at the interval to oblige the United supporters with a wave as he headed for the dressing-room.

Sadly, United were to pay for a slow start to the second half. Cafu had already threatened with a series of menacing crosses when he planted one on to the head of Crespo, who, peeling away from Rio Ferdinand, sent a looping header beyond the reach of Tim Howard. It was beautiful in its execution, but it might have been avoided had Ronaldo, having switched to the left wing, managed to follow the run of Cafu, who had been tracked diligently by Giggs before the Wales winger ’s departure with a facial injury.

That was the end of it as a contest. Ronaldo’s tendency to shoot from distance was infuriating his team-mates by the end, but Van Nistelrooy seemed to blame himself after squandering another chance, in the 71st minute. Otherwise, United rarely threatened to break down a Milan defence in which Jaap Stam, cast aside so ruthlessly by Ferguson in 2001, was excellent .





Più che vincere e convincere il Milan non poteva fare.

Il Manchester Utd. sarà poca cosa (anni fa, provocatoriamente, dicevo che
in Italia uno come Van Nistelrooy sarebbe più o meno come Lucarelli ),
ma il merito di Ancelotti è stato quello di aver saputo impostare tatticamente
una partita che gente come Ferguson non riesce nemmeno a sognarsela.

In un’analisi un po’ frettolosa di Milan – Manchester si potrebbe affermare che
i rossoneri si sono persino “snaturati” per compensare l’assenza fondamentale
di Schevchenko rinunciando a un tipo di gioco che nel recente passato
aveva sempre pagato.

Ma se si analizza meglio la partita si deve sottolineare come il Milan,
pur impostandola sul vantaggio dell’andata *,
non abbia rinunciato alla sua caratteristica peculiare: il "gioco".

E’ in mezzo al campo che ha vinto, più che in difesa,
perché possiede giocatori dalla tecnica individuale
nettamente superiore a quella degli inglesi.

Cafù è stato semplicemente straordinario
(è il miglior laterale destro della storia del calcio),
molto bravi Seedorf, Pirlo e Kakà con Gattuso che ha fatto anche il terzino,
bravo Crespo a concludere un’azione da manuale del calcio.

Con un centrocampo che ha impedito al Manchester di alzare
il ritmo, “sambando futebol”, la difesa (sontuoso Maldini come leader)
ha fatto bene quel che doveva fare con grande attenzione e applicazione.

Scontato il passaggio ai quarti del Lione (altra squadra che basa tutto sulla tecnica), mentre il Chelsea ha avuto bisogno del peggior Collina (il quarto gol era chiaramente irregolare) per qualificarsi.

Il Chelsea gioca esattamente come il Porto dell’anno scorso, ma con giocatori più bravi tecnicamente, tanto è vero che sul piano del possesso palla (significa poco, ma è un valore indicativo) è stato nettamente superiore al Barcellona.

Fantastico il secondo gol di Ronaldinho: ha preso la mira e ha colpito il pallone come solo Minnesota Fats sapeva fare con una palla da biliardo.

La sconfitta del Barcellona, che sta dominando il campionato, è di buon auspicio per la Juventus contro il Real.

Sarà difficile la qualificazione, ma non impossibile.

La Juve dovrà giocare come NON ha giocato il Manchester, cercando di non far giocare gli avversari facendo girare la palla il meno possibile.

Il Real va in difficoltà solo se il ritmo è elevato, altrimenti diventa imbattibile.


* Crespo:
" Il segreto?
Aver vinto a Manchester,
per cui abbiamo potuto sfruttare la loro disperazione,
per poi punirli."


MILAN