You could argue though that it made things harder for us to score once Materazzi had been sent off. After that they clearly just decided to settle for a 0-0 and got everyone behind the ball... Had they had 11 men they wouldn't have done that - the game would've been more open and Torres had already shown he was getting the better of Materazzi anyway. Of course, there's a greater chance they could've scored as well.

I still don't think the second red card was particularly harsh though. The first incident was where the ball had gone and Burdisso swiped out, kicking Kuyt - which you could argue is a straight red anyway. Whilst the second was where both Lucas' and Burdisso's feet were high, the ball was taken away by Lucas, Burdisso missed him with his foot but caught him with his trailing leg (i think). The red in the first leg was extremely harsh but this one doesn't compare.

Time frame = 93 minutes

You funny

I knew i wouldn't be able to stick to it. You're too much of a **** sadly.

Thanks bud but I know you love me really

Your a c*ck.

My my, thats a bit strong.

It's funny how quickly people use Inter's performances against European compared to that of Italian teams to measure the quality of the league, but they NEVER EVER do the reverse with AC Milan.

If they did that, they would soon see that AC Milan have consistently struggled against most Serie A teams over the last two seasons, but last season beat all before them in the Champions League - including destroying Man Utd 3-0. Doesn't that indicate that Serie A is very strong? The team that has dominated Europe more than anyone in recent seasons have been outplayed in Serie A over the last two years.

Of course there are other factors that have a bearing on this, but no one takes them into account when they write off Inter do they? Even though they were so clear, they were about as obvious as a slap in the face.

But above all of that, there's the simple possibility that Inter just don't perform to their best in the Champions League. Wouldn't be the first team to underachieve in the Champions League. Look at Arsenal. For years they underachieved in the competition. Even the mighty undefeated Arsenal, but no one dismissed them and their achievements like they have done with inter - who's achievements last season were arguably greater than even that of the Arsenal side that went a season undefeated.

Inter are the opposite of Liverpool. Good in the league, poor in the Champions League.


Oh and as for Ibrahimovic, get your statistics right. He has not scored 10 penalties. You've been misinformed.

He does have ONLY 20 goals though... Poor Zlatan, someone must've forgotten to give him his shooting boots.

He has 15 goals in 27 league games. Better than 1 in 2. And 5 goals in 8 Champions League games. Better than 1 in 2.

But anyone that has watched him would know how good he is. His goals tell half the story.

Hmmm... let me think... Nah, they're only European champions. Small fry.

Of course they are a bloody big team! They didn't spank Man U, beat Bayern and then Liverpool to win the biggest cup in club football because they are an average team.

However, they have been average in the league, that's something i've pointed out on many occasions. That doesn't mean they aren't a big team though, and their league form has no bearing whatsoever on the Milan derby. The Milan derby is more like a cup tie - especially for AC Milan, who were playing Inter for their pride as Inter were too far ahead of them in the league. Didn't stop Inter winning the last 3 though.


Hmmm, i wonder if that had something to do with the ref sending off their best centre back only half an hour into the match...

Oh and i see no one wants to address the point about Inter having to play their 5th and 6th choice centre backs against one of the best teams in the Champions League...

Wonder why?!

How about instead of discrediting them with no thought or knowledge of them, you address these points first?

I wouldn't say Milan are a very big team in my opinion. Not for the past couple of years anyway.

OK, so they're european champions which by default does make them a big team but they are p!ss poor in their league. For me, big teams try challenge for everything. Man Utd and Chelsea last season went for everything, whereas Milan only seem to focus on the CL nowadays. Same with Liverpool last season. It's disgraceful for clubs like Milan and Liverpool not to be contesting their own championship.

Last season I tipped Liverpool and Milan to knock out Chelsea and Man Utd in the CL semis (check the thread if you don't believe me), but only because they were fresher and hence better prepared. Man Utd and Chelsea were involved in a dogfight in the league and the FA Cup as well as the CL. They were running on empty and injuries were kicking in by the time the semis came.

Ok Joe, it looks like I can't change your mind

I admit we were very fortunate with some of the decision but don't forget the penalty that we should have had when Patrick Vieira hand-balled it.

What handball Tez?

Sometime ago you were the first one to say Milan were poor, now they're are a big team domestically

In the first leg. It happened in the second half. Gerrard tried to knock it over Patrick Vieira in the area and Vieira handled it. Conveniently forgot that one didn't you

Don't be an idiot.

We've just different opinions on the matter there's no necessity for either of us to be called idiot

Sorry.

I respect and like you, but you twisted what i said in an idiotic way to come up with something that was complete tosh.

How about we settle it with - Milan are pish and unable to put together a good league campaign, but are still a big team?

Ok. I think it's the definition of a big club we couldn't agree on. I call a big club a team who's able at the present moment to beat anyone else domestically and in Europe despite the tradition of their past and recent history

If it helps, I don't know what a big club is anymore