Totally boring.Chess Game? Do me a favour,both teams were knackered:as a spectacle it came close to watching my Cat sunbathing.

Mike Rigby, Blackburn, England

Paul from Hong Kong is right - I too noticed how cheap and badly set out it looked. The 'royal box' is the usual modernist wet dream (plain MDF or I'm a Dutchman), while glass panes at the back make it look as if the roof is supended on matchticks, detracting from any sense of uniformity, of structural wholeness. Norman Foster is an elderly man who dresses thirty years too young. His refusal to mature sufficient to permit a degree of taste to influence his work, let alone his preposterous fifth-Beatle dress sense, should have been warning enough.

Ed Leary, Lincoln, England

22 men who each earn more in one week than the average fan in one year, produced a really boring spectacle for all the world to see. Then, to add insult to injury, the losing team showed the world the way not to to lose when collecting their medals. They should all be ashamed. It is not how you behave when you win that really counts but how to receive the losing medal with dignity and pride so that your fans can have some pride too. Children watching this do not see the role models which they need so badly today.

Margaret Grey, Durham,

It is really true that cost 7 TIMES more than the one in Cardfiff? I'm not an old stick in the mud and have been an admirer of Lord Fosters designs but does anyone think it wouldn't have been cheaper to build a modern 120,000 seater national stadium in the centre of the country AND save and refurbish the old Wembley for FA Cup finals and concert events?

The old stadium was the Stonehenge of world sport as a mass spectator event as well as the site for countless historic events such as Live Aid. How did it miss being listed by the UN as a World Heritage site?

Why was it destoyed again? Because no-one could be bothered to fix the toilets? Because the views weren't to to scratch? The old Wembley certainly stopped being just another venue in 1966, it definately became a site of global importance when Queen walked onstage at Live Aid. But yes - the toilets needed fixing and the views were old fashioned so obviously it should have been completely replaced by something better (?)

Christopher Hodgson, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

During the game I got a call from a friend at Wembley who is a Man U fan. He said that seeing a Wheatear flit about the pitch was the highlight of his day. .As this was before Drogba's goal I guess it remains the only memory he will cherish . At least he found a little of that "quality of wildness, that quality of perfect untameability" Seeing Essien play so well is my memory. I would have liked to have seen the Wheatear all the same.

A Moore, Wicklow,

Grow up, it was a chess game played by great players. There was no dazzle because the tatics and marking was flawless. The great attack of Man U (the one Sir Alex claimed to save football) did not show up. The reason it did not exist is simple, they were not playing Sheffield United, they were playing Chelsea.

Man U, had to resort to long balls because there was no alternative. Give credit to chelsea for preventing Man U from dazzling. It also shows why Chelsea resorts many a times to use long balls, give credit to the opposition for defending with grit and prevent Chelsea from playing a more fluid game. Anyone that watches Chelsea games can see the opposition always goes into a super defensive mode. Even Arsenal, the pride of the EPL for fluid football, resorted to a defensive shell against 10 men Chelsea. Think with your head not your heart!

Incidentally, the Mourinho dog story is priceless, football politics at its best, albeit sad for a civilized society.

Jose Lourenco, toronto,

Oh dear. Forget the football, the world tuned in as much to see the new Wembley. But Lord Foster, what were you thinking? Two prominent garage doors on either end of the ground in full view at every corner. What's that all about? A tacky alluminium builder's rail on the royal box and a stupid dog leg set of steps to get to it. I read where there'd be no dark and like due to sun shadow to annoy the cameramen. There it was as well. No wonder the game lacked pazzazz. So does the finish. The 800 special ones paid for the stadium didn't buy it either.

Paul, Hong Kong,

Guess we were spoilt by Liverpool v West Ham last year. But why would anyone expect a different outcome than when Chelsea played Man U. in a desperate Premiership encounter a couple of weeks ago? Ultimately neither clubs' moneymen give a toss about the opening of the new Wembley. And I doubt that a Scot and a Portuguese are going to give their blessing to a showcase event as bedrock for future England glories.

Howard Broadwell, Nottingham, England

And how often are the `classics' overblown summits between two clever, star-studded teams who know each other inside out and eventually produce a stalemate? Give me David and Goliath any day: Wimbledon (FA Cup 1988); Goran Ivanisevic (Wimbledon 2001); James J Braddock (Madison Square Garden 1935). To paraphrase the words of Vinnie Jones in the dressing room before coming out against Liverpool:
“A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight!”
…. or something along those lines as I recall. That’s what makes a final.

David Carter, Barking, UK