But whereas United is a game we can look back on as being nothing short of disastrous, regardless of the bad luck and poor refereeing decisions, Chelsea was completely different.
This was a nothing game, anybody who argues anything else misses the point completely. This wasn't so much 'after the Lord Mayor's show', more a dead Premiership game at the end of the season. Quite rightly, almost anything pales into significance in comparison with the Champions League semi-final, but to argue this was a game of importance is ridiculous.
Pre-match we were 6 points behind Chelsea with 9 on offer. And we had an inferior goal difference.
So to get 3rd place, we had to beat them, and then hope they also dropped points in each of their final two league games. Against Blackburn and Sunderland. And we had to win at Old Trafford.
So let us be unequivocal, when we look at the sequence of events needed to make this game in any way meaningful, it is clear that this was a dead game.
Yet, whilst The Times this morning accused Arsene of delusion, I didn't think his post-match comments were misguided.
On the nature of the defeat…
“It’s very difficult. You can be very positive or very negative. We lost the game 4-1 which is a major disappointment but I feel going forward we had a very interesting game and created plenty of chances. That is never a 4-1 game, we should have been 2-0 up before they had a shot on goal. On the first free-kick we made a mistake and they scored. Today we missed seven or eight clear-cut chances and on every single mistake we made we were punished.”
And he's spot on. For half an hour the Grove was relaxed because we were passing it around Chelsea. It seemed only a matter of time before we scored. And yet Chelsea had scored three before we'd put it in the back of the net.
So in one sense, Arsene is right. On another day we'd have grabbed the first goal, and a different match would have panned out. Yet the fact we didn't score the first goal is testament to poor finishing.
I'm not going to lay into Theo like Kevin Whitcher does, but the fact remains that he leaves a lot to be desired. I accept he scores the odd good goal and will occasionally provide a great ball in, but he's like a broken watch: he's bound to do something good occasionally.
Indeed, if Diaby hadn't been having one of his customary dreadful afternoons, I'd criticise Arsenal tactically: how many times yesterday afternoon, did they play it down the right and cross it into the box?
Admittedly, eventually it brought a goal but by then, the game was gone. If RVP had come out to the left, rather than being left isolated, we might have been less one-dimensional. I know it sounds like blasphemy, but it was almost reminiscent of watching England:employing the same tactics over and over again with no sense of adaptability.
I grant you we created chances, but is it really a chance when Cech just claims the ball?
The bare facts are these: Cesc is much more effectual in central midfield, where he imposes he influence on the game. Nasri would have given us another outlet on the left. It's all a bit of a mish-mash.
Ultimately, the difference between the teams was clinical finishing: Chelsea scored from their first chance and when Anelka got on the ball, he took advantage.
That's experience. Ade is our top league goalscorer this season with ten goals. And ultimately, that's the difference between the good and the great: making your possession and chances count.
On the surface, this match meant nothing. But within the football shown, I think we saw why it will be another trophyless season. (And also what a key player William Gallas is).
It's been a difficult week.
So keep the faith,