Man Utd 2-1 Chelsea

Everytime I think about Man Utd and Chelsea, what comes to mind? Mark Hughes, who played for both sides (Bosnich and Veron too)? Gianfranco Zola and his amazing ability? Cantona and Hasselbaink? Solskjaer and Flo? Other names from the past like Kanchelskis, Poyet, or so many others? I actually always remember Phil Neville scoring the winner in 1998. Really. Strange, I know.

Billed as the biggest game of the season, the title-decider, the table-topping extravaganza, the clash of the titans, Red vs Blue certainly lived up to the hype. As a United fan, here's some analysis, which will try to stay as objective as possible.

Firstly, the lineups for both teams were very positive, which was to be expected given United were playing at home - even the FA Cup tie against Arsenal saw an "attacking" starting XI, despite what many will argue - and they had rested most of the squad in midweek. Chelsea, of course, needed a win to move to the summit and hold their destiny in their hands.

Instead, it seemed that less than a minute in, Chelsea were intent on wrecking the destiny that they had worked so hard to salvage the past few weeks. Given time and room to turn and look for a forward pass in midfield, the a vintage Ryan Giggs picked out the floppy-haired Park Ji-Sung, who in turn found the Mexican Magician to make it 1-0 before most had settled. Chelsea certainly hadn't.

The rest of the first half saw United dominate, extending their lead and in truth, it could have and perhaps should have been at least three goals for the team in red by the break.

Much had been made of Howard Webb's appointment as match official (his record at Old Trafford is suspicious, at best), but his decision(s) to allow Ivanovic to remain on the pitch and disregard a blatant Lampard handball were quite astonishing. One might think he was trying his damnedest to remove the tag of United-lackey that many have (justifiably) labelled him with. That Lampard scored in the second half to threaten a Roman revolution in itself suggested that a certain Scotsman would have been apoplectic come the final whistle had Chelsea pulled level.

And yet, the Chelsea goal almost triggered a repeat of what happened in the Champions League; United nearly restoring their two-goal advantage to take the tie beyond the visitors.

Many had predicted (and hoped?) before the game that Fernando Torres would start on the bench, though certain members of the Liverpool fan-base were sure he'd score, given his record against United and a certain Nemanja Vidic (who did score). His appearance late in the second half produced one misplaced shot and a weak penalty appeal, though even that was more than what some of the other Chelsea players conjured up during the entire 90 minutes.

The aforementioned Nemaja Vidic was a rock at the heart of the United defence, shackling the Ivorian threat of Didier Drogba, and Fabio on the right side of defence showed why so many had pipped him as a better player than his twin brother Rafael. How Ferguson will fit both of them with the missing Patrice Evra will be interesting to watch in the coming years, given the form of Valencia and Park.

Speaking of missing players, United scored this decisive victory over the current champions and their closest rivals without the league's top scorer and the one who should have been crowned Player of the Season (ahead of the scarred Judas Carlos Tevez). While this might suggest a staggering strength in depth that United might boast, one feels that it only demonstrates that nearly every side in the Premier League this season is much weaker than they ought to be.

There are voices in the Chelsea camp (and in the United camp) calling for a mass overhaul in the playing squad, with the players the wrong side of 30 being offloaded. I'm not sure how effective that mentality would be, but an Alex-David Luiz partnership is probably the Blues' best defensive pairing even today. A returning Daniel Sturridge would also make a strong argument for a starting place, giving Ancelotti (if he's still there) more selection problems upfront.

And upfront is where Chelsea will surely improve next season. Wayne Rooney took nearly a year to come close to his snarling best, pre-ankle injury. Torres played a long time for Spain and Liverpool nowhere close to full fitness, and the Spaniard will most likely find his form of old after a good pre-season. Speaking of poor displays, Ashley Cole looked absolutely ragged against Antonio Valencia, didn't he?

On to United.

I've long been a detractor of Michael Carrick. He's neither the visionary maestro that Paul Scholes is nor the inspirational bruiser that the former No. 16 Roy Keane was (is?). I tend to remember his mistakes (Man City) more than his quiet contributions, but the partnership with the ageless Giggs seems to be a fantastic pairing. Will they cope with Barcelona in a few weeks? I highly doubt it, but you never know. I'm a fan of Anderson, truth be told, and Fletcher will surely get into the side. I've already spoken about Fabio, while Evans and Smalling in particular looked more than tidy at the back when they came on, though Evans might have done more for Lampard's goal.

At the final whistle, the United fans, players and staff celebrated as if the trophy presentation was to follow. Post-match, journalists asked Fergie how happy he was to knock Liverpool off their perch. That perch was the subject of an entertaining banner that cameras focussed on during the game as well. Now, while a sole point from two games - Ewood Park and Blackpool at home - should be a formality, disastrous collapses have happened before. No one would be happier than I (with Kopper friends, family and co-workers) when United to secure that 19th title, but let's hold off the champagne to when we finally do win, eh?

All in all, it was a good game, unless you are a Chelsea fan. But even they would have to admit that the better side won, on the day. Next season will be intriguing, with a revitalized Liverpool and an ever-improving Man City thrown into the works.

Thor: Spoiler-Free Review

So, I caught Part III of the build up to The Avengers over the weekend, going in with less-than-stellar expectations. Here's what I thought.

I'm a fan of Natalie Portman. While I thought Black Swan was quite good yet overrated, I loved Star Wars and V, even if she wasn't the main draw by far. Her role in Thor wasn't an entirely crucial one as far as the grand scheme of things go (she's supposed to be a nurse, anyway). Still, she's funny enough when it mattered, and like I said, I'm a fan.

Side note: Natalie Portman's co-star in V will be in Captain America, if you didn't already know. Elrond, Smith, Megatron, V, Red Skull. Wow.

Moving on, you can't look past Chris Hemsworth (or his abs, if you're of the fairer sex, probably) as the title character. For a long time, there were rumors flying about that Triple H from the WWE was slated to play the Norse God - after impressing in Blade: Trinity - and many had mixed opinions on that. I've only seen/remembered Hemsworth from the opening scenes of Star Trek, but I have to say, he's really good in and as Thor. "I need a horse!" is the definite line of the show.

Before I go further though, I must make on small admission. I knew very little about Thor before X-Men Legends 2 (which is very fantastic).

That being said, I felt the film does a good job introducing the character and revealing enough of his history and paying enough attention to his development to make a lasting impression on casual viewers. I can't speak for hardcore Thor fans, but as a Marvel fan, I'm quite happy with it.

A lot of emphasis on the movie is, like I've previously alluded to, the build up to the fangasm that is The Avengers. One has to say that Thor helps with that in many ways, but it also suggests that when the four of them do get together with the eyepatched one in 2012, it's going to be a very long movie. I like.

The music is pretty good, setting the tone especially in the beginning of the film. Foo Fighters accompanies anyone staying through the credits. And anyone who doesn't is an idiot. Yep.

The action is alright too, though it lacks the "wow" factor that was in, say, X-Men 2. One thing that's bothered me since Mjollnir was revealed in Iron Man 2 (remember what I said about staying after credits?) was how boring it looks. I know the hammer has been depicted as such in the comics, but it's also been jazzed up to be super cool. Like in the animated version of the Avengers. There are some sweet fight scenes though, but I think Thor suffers from the same syndrome that has haunted all Marvel films other than Spiderman 2; a poor final fight.

All in all, Thor is definitely a great movie. Casual viewers and comic buffs should both enjoy it, and it will leave you wanting more, in a good way. As many of us are seeing lightning in one form or another these past few days, I'd highly recommend an outing to watch this movie.

Poll Bearers

So election fever is running high in just about every corner of our little red dot, with cab drivers, housewives, businessmen, students and media personalities all contributing their own opinions on which three-letter acronym one should mark an X by.

I for one, am quite aghast at what has been going on.

On the day many around the world rejoice at the death of one sect leader, others here seem to have focussed all their energies on besmirching their rivals, with little-to-no apparent constructive comment-making on any agenda.

Now, I'm far from proactive when it comes to politics - local or otherwise - but I make no exaggeration when I say that all I know about the "opposition" parties is what is splashed across Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets. And nearly all of that is the same.

"LOL PAP SUX"

It's a black mark against the people who are keen on going against the men in white, and quite honestly, a major turn off for myself - and other less-excited people as well, I'm sure.

When it seems like your motivation, your unique selling point, your main and only focus is to highlight that someone or somebody else is less-than-adequate, you're most likely to do nothing but paint yourself in a similar light. You might be able to rile up enough anger amongst "The People" to garner a few rage-votes, but in my eyes, that's very short sighted. From every angle.

Really, my vote will not be gained by groups and parties that are doing naught but saying everyone else sucks.

Don't get me wrong, diversity is good (racial harmony too!) and I won't be surprised if more than one new voice is heard within parliament very soon, but this whole thing has left a very sour taste.

And it's mainly because of the people who are supporting these other people.

The people who attempt to sit on their moral high-chairs when they point at conveniently-timed bank deposits, the same people who bemoan the lack of funds for the hammer-wielders or Star Trek-inspired democrats. You could do something about it, but I'm sure the cash will go to things like an iPad 2 or a nice trip to Marina Bay Sands.

The people who scoff at the "astronomical" salaries of diplomats and politicians, and fail to understand that perhaps such figures might be the reason why corruption is at nominal levels among highly-paid officials in local government as well as modern-day professional sport.

The people who coin terms like "white noise" and "sack the maid" and other quasi-clever analogies, and for all intents and purposes, appear to be little more than bitter citizens jumping on to the anarchists' bandwagon.

All in all, I'm not a huge fan of those already here, but the ones knocking on the door don't seem to be anything more than jealous and loud-mouthed neighbors. You won't see me (post-VS) clad in all-white, but the newcomers have not done nearly enough to persuade me.