IN reply to Tim Barlow's letter (Evening Press, Monday, June 2) in criticism of Dave Stanford's Champions League report, I would just like to say that Mr Stanford was spot on.

To say, like Mr Barlow does, that the match itself was dull highlights the ignorance among some spectators.

Just because there were no goals does not mean it was dull - far from it. The quality of the play was incredible, there were several chances at both ends, there was immense tension and the atmosphere was out of this world.

The pace of the game was amazing, with fewer mistakes made than in any Premiership game I've ever seen.

The fact there were no goals was because the defending was astounding, and that is a key part of football. It was also one of the main reasons the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid weren't there - they just weren't good enough.

TV pundit Mark Lawrenson was spot-on when he asked what the defenders were supposed to do? Play badly so that we see some goals and appease the likes of Mr Barlow?

I agree things faded in extra-time but both teams had injuries and were tired, and you could hardly blame them for being worried they may be caught out.

For Mr Barlow to say there have been better games at Bootham Crescent this season is simply laughable. Two of the best teams in the world showing qualities the Premiership can only dream of, or a slow, mistake-ridden bit of Division Three kick and hope? There can be no comparison.

Andy Kellow,

Bond End

Knaresborough

Updated: 09:57 Friday, June 06, 2003