I don't understand what you are saying now. You concede Barcelona created few chances in both games but still think they dominated the two legged tie.
A team sets up how each game the way they feel they can gain a result. Barcelona is the best team in the world. Nobody would be foolish enough to open up at Camp Nou. Its called tactics, and Chelsea (the slightly inferior team) applied them very well to create a good chance for themselves to advance.
I think it's very misleading to really praise Chelsea and say their tactics worked. When a world class team puts all 11 men behind the ball, it is very difficult for any team to break through.
I think Barca did play poorly on the night. Moved the ball too slow, and you have to take into account the fact they had a makeshift centreback in Toure, an injured in-form striker Henry, and both those reasons meant a big shuffle in midfield.
Essien's goal was magnificent but it was a one-in-a-million wonder strike as a result of a poor blocked shot off a Barca defender. These little bits of luck help. How would Chelsea have played without that freak goal in the first 10 minutes?
There were definitely some disputable calls, and Chelsea can feel aggrieved. But I think it is outright pathetic for a team that has spent half a billion the last four years to play a match as if they were Stoke, Bolton, or a Division 2 side. It wasn't a heartfelt performance, it was gutless, cowardly, and it speaks volumes that with 20 minutes left, and having an extra man they still couldn't do a thing.
Fuck them, and fuck that style of football. One of the greatest celebrations in sport will be watching Iniesta's goal floating in, and the footballing side going through.
I think Barca did play poorly on the night. Moved the ball too slow, and you have to take into account the fact they had a makeshift centreback in Toure, an injured in-form striker Henry, and both those reasons meant a big shuffle in midfield.
Essien's goal was magnificent but it was a one-in-a-million wonder strike as a result of a poor blocked shot off a Barca defender. These little bits of luck help. How would Chelsea have played without that freak goal in the first 10 minutes?
There were definitely some disputable calls, and Chelsea can feel aggrieved. But I think it is outright pathetic for a team that has spent half a billion the last four years to play a match as if they were Stoke, Bolton, or a Division 2 side. It wasn't a heartfelt performance, it was gutless, cowardly, and it speaks volumes that with 20 minutes left, and having an extra man they still couldn't do a thing.
Fuck them, and fuck that style of football. One of the greatest celebrations in sport will be watching Iniesta's goal floating in, and the footballing side going through.
Totally puzzled with the cries against Chelsea for playing defensive. Is there a rule which says teams have to play with x amount of attacking players?
Anywho didn't Chelsea have more goal chances than Barcelona yesterday? So shouldn't you be more upset with Barcelona for failing to produce great excitement? They were pathetic, especially world player of the year Messi. All the excitement was in Barcelona's penalty box.
Anywho didn't Chelsea have more goal chances than Barcelona yesterday? So shouldn't you be more upset with Barcelona for failing to produce great excitement? They were pathetic, especially world player of the year Messi. All the excitement was in Barcelona's penalty box.
HPark! Hope you're well mate.
I don't buy that argument really. Chelsea have got more than enough talent and quality in their team to cause troubles and play decent football. Barca had a makeshift defense, and juggled midfield. They should have been braver and looked to exploit those weaknesses. I don't think you'll see a more gutless sight in football than Chelsea playing against 10 MEN with 2 midfielders in defence, and yet still being dominated, so much so in fact, that the possession stats for Barca actually increased during that period.
Maybe they should have killed the game off. Maybe Drogba should have scored his chances.
The point for me is that Barcelona could have played the same tactics as Chelsea, and I tell you Chelsea would likely not have scored. It is very very tough to breakdown a side that plays 11 men behind the ball. People will say ' well they should create something', and to an extent that's true. But there's a big difference in having to untangle Almeria or Stoke, and trying to untangle a world class team that has basically resorted to playing Ballack in central defence.
Check the stats in the first games. The player with the most passes for Chelsea was Petr Cech! That speaks volumes for me.
I think essentially, Chelsea played a cowardly game which is 'Let's stop them from scoring, and HOPE we score'. They got lucky with the goal. Maybe not other decisions, but over 2 legs, I'm glad the team who stuck to their principles and passing game won. Despite not being at their best by a long shot.
Barca played nicer. Chelsea more effective. Both great teams.
Ref did influence. Barca defender shouldn´t have been ejected, it was incidental contact. Some might argue that it changed the whole outcome of the game. My outlook on the penalties not called. I only saw two by the way, someone mentioned 3. First one, Anelka tried to flick the ball and it hit Piqué in the hand, penalty, no doubt about it. Second one, last minute shot by Ballack that hits Etoo, this one is hard to analize, Etoo never intended to play the ball with his hand, he even had his back to Ballack.
Wish they had instant replay in soccer. They already have a ref sitting in the sidelines. Why not review plays like these?
Ref did influence. Barca defender shouldn´t have been ejected, it was incidental contact. Some might argue that it changed the whole outcome of the game. My outlook on the penalties not called. I only saw two by the way, someone mentioned 3. First one, Anelka tried to flick the ball and it hit Piqué in the hand, penalty, no doubt about it. Second one, last minute shot by Ballack that hits Etoo, this one is hard to analize, Etoo never intended to play the ball with his hand, he even had his back to Ballack.
Wish they had instant replay in soccer. They already have a ref sitting in the sidelines. Why not review plays like these?
I'm puzzled here. You think Chelsea played cowardly yesterday? I thought they played a balanced game, especially considering they got the early goal. They adopted a counter attacking mentality and they created many chances with it (more than Barca). Malouda, Lampard, Essien, Drogba and Anelka all pushed forward on attacks. What more could you ask for here? Barcelona has highly technical players everywhere, they are always going to dominate the ball. It seems like everyone is associating possession stats with domination. Totally wrong.
First game yes they were only there to defend (personally don't have a problem but obviously some do). But that was the plan (note Bayern's "brave" intent got them eliminated before the return leg). Get out of the Camp Nou giving yourself a chance at Stamford Bridge. They played good football yesterday.
Guess we're all going to have agree to disagree here.
Hope all is well with you Rhino.
If there were no tactics, soccer would be reduced to 22 headless chickens running around like lemmings. Part of the attraction of yesterdays game was to see the two conflicting styles going at it.
It was a shame, that the ref became the center of attention. He had a bad day. It happens. Chelsea should point @themselves too, Drogba needs to score on his chances an we wouldnt have this discussion.
Looking forward, it is worrying to me, that Barca were so easily outcoached by chelsea. Guardiolas inexperience clearly showed. He didnt have a "plan b" cause he has not needed one so far.
Man u should be favorites to take the title again, imo.
It was a shame, that the ref became the center of attention. He had a bad day. It happens. Chelsea should point @themselves too, Drogba needs to score on his chances an we wouldnt have this discussion.
Looking forward, it is worrying to me, that Barca were so easily outcoached by chelsea. Guardiolas inexperience clearly showed. He didnt have a "plan b" cause he has not needed one so far.
Man u should be favorites to take the title again, imo.
I had some time to kill and got an amusing read out of this thread. I never intended to post in it, especially seeing that it's already a little old, but after reading this post I just can't refrain from saying that you, Alense, don't seem to have the slightest clue of football and amply show that in almost every post you make, so you may want to try to find other sports you perhaps understand a little better. ;-)
Btw my own humble opinion about the game - Chelsea did everything right tactically except in the end where they should have tried a little more to seal the game against 10 men - if you try to only defend then even a reduced team can get lucky.
I agree that Chelsea should have been awarded at least one penalty, but I think Chelsea has not much reason to dwell too much on the referee's decisions seeing that they could still easily have won had they converted their chances.
I'm too lazy and have too little time to really go into details, but from your comments it is obvious that you seem to fail to grasp that at football (like most other sports) the goal is to win the game and it's wise to do whatever increases your chance of winning. Playing attractively is neither the goal of the game nor is it always efficient. You seem to be the kind of person who believes that the best basketball player is the one who can do the most spectacular dunks. Sports, and especially football, doesn't work that way.
I admit that I missed the first leg but I got to watch the game in London. Anyone who thinks Barca was the superior team there either has no idea of football or has watched another game.
Perhaps no-one ever told you, but possession stats as such mean nothing, it's quality of possession that counts. If one team strike quickly and creates dangerous situations while the other inefficiently passes the ball around then the latter team will of course have more possession, but what good is it for them? It's similar with shots. An advantage in shots taken does not mean much if in reality the team, frustrated because they cannot break through the defence, try lots of harmless long-range shots. Notice that while Barca had more than three times the number of shots, they had only two more than Chelsea that came on the goal.
You yourself admitted that Barca did not create great chances. Without creating chances you will not win very often. so how can you say Barca dominated the game when Chelsea effectively stifled them and managed to create great chances themselves?
Bottom line - if you think Barca played the way football is supposed to be played you are saying football is supposed to be played inefficiently. Very few football experts will agree with you.
I fully understand what you are saying and you make valid points. I understand about playing efficiently and stifling the opposition to then counter attack and create good chances. Italian teams played this way for years and were very successful. However if you really love this sport you know that this is not the way forward for the game.
There is a reason football is called the beautiful game and Chelsea's approach to both games is not an example of it. Chelsea's approach is an example of what italians call anticalcio. In the first leg they sacrificed the creative talents of their players to ensure that they would not concede. Their only chance came from a mistake from Marquez. This approach to a game should only be reserved to a team that is vastly inferior to their opposition. For a team like Chelsea to adopt this approach damages the game.
To some like you football is merely a sport where any means are justified as long as you win. If telling your keeper to play long balls to your striker all day is the most efficient approach then you are happy to use those tactics. To people like me that is not enough. Football is more than that.
Ask Brazilians, Argentinians or Spanish if they would be happy with their teams playing the way Chelsea did. They want their players to express themselves with the ball, to be creative, to entertain. Again, if this sport is not in your blood you will not understand this.
The sport is most certainly in my blood, and you sir, have no idea what you're talking about here. Give me an Enlighs hards-as-nails, tough-tackling, no skill centre back over a skillful winger like Ronaldo or Messi any day of the week. There's a reason that John Terry is the highest player in the world.
You have no idea how this game works. If every team went out there with the intention of playing lovely passing football they'd all end up like West Brom did this season playing that way. You call that entertainment? I'd much rather see a good team trying to break down a well organized defense instead of run-and-gun, high scoring, no tactic football.
Chelsea were by far the better team in both legs. Their first leg performance was a textbook example of how to play against a skillful team. Stifle the opposition's creativity, by fouling if necessary, cut out any probing balls in the hole, and counter attack if and when the team makes a mistake. Had Drogba scored in the first leg, like he should have, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The day they get instant replay in football is the day that I stop watching. Instead of the commercial filled drivel American sports fans put up with, we get two forty-five minute periods of uninterrupted, free-flowing quality entertainment. Instant replay has ruined the NFL because of all the stoppages it creates. There is no flow to the game. Thank God instant replay will never be allowed in football.
