Chelsea v Barca 2nd Leg
- Thread starter donny1013
- Start date
- Status
Kendall
Well-Known Member
- Feb 8, 2007
- 38,502
- 11,933
and it all mentions Franco had any input on Real Madrid's success?
I first heard about this on here after you mentioned it many months ago. I did some reading about it and found no conclusive proof at all that Franco interferred with football.
Its all legend, probably made up by 'opressed' catalunians.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 26,958
- 45,231
To be fair I think Franco wasn't just anti Catalan he was anti anyone who wasn't on his side and in Catalunya and Euskadi the opposition manifested itself in a nationalist manner following on from their autonomy under the previous regime however Franco did nothing less to federal government and regional government members that opposed him as well.
Like all dictators Franco saw kudos in sporting excellence and so would always want to enable a chosen favourite to succeed internationally in this case it was Real Madrid.
I know I'm a sad bastard but I actually refused to go on holiday with my friends the Early 70's because they always went to Franco's Spain and I wouldn't.
Anyway back to the topic:- chelsea lost and absolutely disgraced themsealves in the process :rofl::rofl:
Coyboy
The Double of 1961 is still The Double
- Dec 3, 2004
- 15,506
- 5,032
You aren't going to find me defending or excusing Franco. I know fully well that all other non-Castillian nationalisms were sharply oppressed leading to the formation and militirization of Eta. But that was thirty years ago, Spain has changed immeasurably since then- industrialized and grown economically, until very recently, more than any other country bar Japan. But I don't see the need nowdays to make a political comment out of football. I hate politicised sport when it is so militant.
I know fully well that Barca fans are not homogenous group. No sets of fans are. But a great deal of them espouse quasi-separatist and anti-Castllian tenets which have no place in football for me. If they believe them fine, but don't use them to score petty points over other teams. I believe that Barca's slogan is 'mes que un club' or something in Catalan but it doesn't have to be so malign and indignant as if often is. I am not talking about how they celebrated last night, nothing wrong with that, but things like how they reacted to losing under Rijkaard and how they reacted to winning- Eto'o and Puyol's comments stand out for me.
As for the rest of Spain, of course there are strong areas of Barca support as there are for Madrid but there is an ill feeling towards Catalan nationalism throughout. I witnessed this living in one of the provinces you mention, Valencia. There was far more anti-Barca sentiment when they came to the Mestalla than Madrid, Madrid are not liked at all but many in Valencia- almost all I knew and talked to- did not like the political views espoused and in some cases aggresively pursued by Catalans. And Barca, as more than a club, are an inextricable part of it. I don't like that, you may have pride in that. That's fine. This issue divides many Spaniards.
What Franco did was inexcusable and the resistance, a lot of pacific and cultural in Cataluna was commendable, but now thirty five years on Spain is the most decentralised and federalised country in Europe so Cataluna has autonomy, it has its language, its culture but significant elements within the club see the need to politicise wins and losses. That is what annoys me. How they play football I have little problem with, but my point about the game was that they didn't play well in the game and were outfought by Chelsea. They won, congrats, but a little humility even admiting that Essien scored a terrific goal wouldn't hurt would it?
It's not that I prefer that sort of football at all but Barca's style didn't work well and was not that attractive to watch because there was no end product, no finishing touches and many of their better players especially Eto'o had awful games. Chelsea did well at what they are capable of and some of the players you mention had very good games- Lamps, Malouda and Essien.
I think they were all, with the exception of Eto'o's penalties. I think you would have been pretty jaundiced to deny any of them. Drogba had an awful night and much of his awful behavior after that was probably anger at himself. He also does himself no favours by going down so much that when he is brought down unfairly as he was by Abidal- he gets nothing. The boy who cries wolf sums it up pretty well.
So you cannot conclude that because I thought the best team won, I prefer defensive organisational football. I prefer a happy balance. Chelsea defended excellently, created chances and didn't finish them off. Barca defended like chumps, created no chances and passed the ball well but impenetrably for 90 minutes. So I think it is up for interpretation which was the better team. I think one way you think tother, nout wrong with that. The bottom line for me, though, is that if the ref had his head screwed on- Chelsea would have had a penalty in the 82nd minute and killed the game (and yes Dougs if Lamps hadn't had a Keane).
Coyboy
The Double of 1961 is still The Double
- Dec 3, 2004
- 15,506
- 5,032
Pretty much yea, and funnily enough we have Eta to thank for his legacy not continuing as they assasinated his right hand man and probably heir a couple of years before his death. For obvious reasons, Franco didn't like cultural or linguistic heterdoxy.
Interestingly enough, according to most Spanairds the most 'different' region of Spain is Andalucia- the home of flamenco, bulls etc- and yet that is what most associate, stereotypically, with Spain quite often. As I have said, thirty five years have passed and that has been a long thirty years for Spain especially as a lot of the social and cultural changes started to take place in the 60s- making Francoism bankrupt before he met his creator in 1975.
Believe what you want, but the millions who lived through it know differently. One thing people forget about fascist governments is they are very good at covering their tracks. No one would of known about the holocaust if the Allies hadn't liberated the camps. When countries are invaded all their dirty secrets are left exposed. When a dictator merely dies and the country is left in the control of those he groomed the country can safely burry its questionable decisions and oppressive attitude. Then you get people coming along years later, reading the official government line on it all and accusing it of being 'wishy washy hearsay'.
I disagree, it is a source of national pride for Catalans when their club does well. The slogan isn't malign, the slogan is a reference to times gone by but also the future, the donation of a portion of income to UNICEF for example was accused by Madridistas of being arrogant, but it isn't it is simply not being greedy and deciding to help those less fortunate.
Okay sure you get the whole pro Catalan chants when Barça do well, but then I don't think that is political. Scotland and England are essentially part of the same country, but when a Scot team beats an English team you get alot of Scottish patriotic chants and songs sang alongside club chants and songs...Many of the people singing those songs aren't Scottish nationalists, but they sing Flower of Scotland etc
Ah but one could say alot of Valenciana's aggression has come from the way their own language has been suppressed down the years, a process which is currently continueing under their own autonomous government. Banning TV3 for example from going to Valencia, cutting off the teaching in schools...giving people there no outlet for their own customs and instead shoving Spanish nationalism down their throats. Many people in Valencia don't even know their own culture anymore, it is the result of what many see as the Spanish Governments continued subtle attempts to make the autonomous regions conform. Much of Spain's hatred for Catalunya comes from its refusal to conform even now.
Also the distinction that Valencian and Catalan are one in the same, but many of the remaining Valencian speakers still insist it isn't despite what linguistic experts say. You know when the Spanish government sends papers to the EU it also sends the papers in the regional languages, yet the EU is annoyed because the "Valencian" and "Catalan" papers are identical.
Its similar to Scot teams playing English teams...I've shown humility, admitted we were outplayed etc. I just refuse to bow down to the ref being on our side.
To put it bluntly, If Spurs had been in Barcelona's situation I really don't see most people on here dwelling on Chelsea's plight much, nor Essien's goal.
Bonjour
Señor Member
- Dec 1, 2003
- 11,931
- 30
I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that Franco was a nasty, shitty piece of work. All I think Kendall is questioning is whether he had a hand in Real Madrid's success/es around that era.
I wouldn't claim to know one way or the other. Haven't got a danny.
I wouldn't claim to know one way or the other. Haven't got a danny.
markiespurs
SC Supporter
- Jul 9, 2008
- 11,899
- 15,576
I've got to agree with Johan Cruyff, who hardly impartial, hits the nail right on the head with these comments published in the Sun today:
"Dutch legend Cruyff reckons the Blues chief was too cautious when he replaced Didier Drogba with defender Juliano Belletti after Eric Abidal had been sent off.
And the former Barca boss blasted fellow countryman Hiddink’s negative tactics over the two legs.
Cruyff said: “Barca were down to 10 men with 25 minutes left when Hiddink changed Drogba.
“But he didn’t look to kill the game off. He thought he’d won or there was no more danger. He made a big mistake.
“If you analyse the two games, the team going to Rome is the only one who played football.”
These comments echo the famous words of the great Danny Blanchflower when he said:
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
Perhaps if Hiddink had sent his side out to beat Barca, instead of waiting for them to "die of boredom", then Chelsea might have won and those four penalties Chelsea had turned down would'nt have mattered.
"Dutch legend Cruyff reckons the Blues chief was too cautious when he replaced Didier Drogba with defender Juliano Belletti after Eric Abidal had been sent off.
And the former Barca boss blasted fellow countryman Hiddink’s negative tactics over the two legs.
Cruyff said: “Barca were down to 10 men with 25 minutes left when Hiddink changed Drogba.
“But he didn’t look to kill the game off. He thought he’d won or there was no more danger. He made a big mistake.
“If you analyse the two games, the team going to Rome is the only one who played football.”
These comments echo the famous words of the great Danny Blanchflower when he said:
"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
Perhaps if Hiddink had sent his side out to beat Barca, instead of waiting for them to "die of boredom", then Chelsea might have won and those four penalties Chelsea had turned down would'nt have mattered.
TheBlueRooster
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2005
- 3,818
- 4,706
I agree with the ref not being on Barca's side. I've seen each penalty decision on that night equally argued why it should or shouldn't have been given. The only thing is on that night there were four in one game which doesn't often crop up. If it had been four seperate matches you'd have said that there was a ball to hand, two unsighted and one pull back to the origanal foul.
Michey
New Member
- May 4, 2004
- 7,888
- 1
Wow, that's a bit sick and unpleasant to read.
nferno
Waiting for England to finally win the Euros-2024?
- Jan 7, 2007
- 7,063
- 10,156
not pathetic but, nyways ill stop now.
btw: who neg repped me? haha i dont even care about my rep im just here to make posts:rofl:
yawa
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2005
- 12,591
- 9,416
goto the account option at the top and you'll be able to see who did it.
Bus-Conductor
SC Supporter
- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
We clearly fundamenatlly disagree on what gives us pleasure in the footballing sense.
As I said in my original post, chelsea defended superbly, and Guardiola made tactical mistakes, particularly playing the best footballer they have as LM. I grant you Eto was awful and Alves was erratic in both games.
But I think you misunderstand football a little if you don't realise that tactically it is much easier to organise players to stop the opposition playing than it is to coach players to play like Barca do.
You say there was no end product, but in the end Barca went through.
On another note, I had a conversation with a mate of mine today who's a huge Chelsea fan. We've known each other for years and always talk football. I said to him diplomatically, "you lot were a bit unlucky the other night". He replied "I don't think so, I think Essien was lucky not to get sent off for putting his studs down their players leg, I think their player never should have been sent off, I think if drogba didn't spend half his career throwing himself to the floor he'd be more believable and hand balls where the ball hits the arm are always debatable. And if we can't be arsed to string three passes together against ten men then we don't deserve to be in a european final".
I thought that was pretty pregmatic & honest.
CaptainCat
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 7,874
- 56
I think that's all rubbish really. Chelsea had some really swift attacks on the floor, slicing through the Barca defence, if you remember. I think everyone's making a bit too much of this "negative football" stuff. I'll admit I didn't see the first leg, but what I saw in the 2nd was Chelsea being by far the best attacking team of the two. I don't think you can blame Chelsea for going aerial sometimes - they were finding it hard to play on the ground with Barcelona's closing down. But nevertheless, Chelsea had a few chances that actually came from good build-up... which is actually more than Barca did.
CaptainCat
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 7,874
- 56
And that's bad, is it? Yeah, Ronaldo's goal was awful the other night wasn't it.
It is definitely over now
I think Man Utd stand the best chance of winning, providing that they keep their players injury free. If they can tie up the PL before the end, then both Barca and Man Utd can rest players, so we should at least see two teams going for it.
I think Man Utd stand the best chance of winning, providing that they keep their players injury free. If they can tie up the PL before the end, then both Barca and Man Utd can rest players, so we should at least see two teams going for it.
It is definitely over now
I think Man Utd stand the best chance of winning, providing that they keep their players injury free. If they can tie up the PL before the end, then both Barca and Man Utd can rest players, so we should at least see two teams going for it.
Agree, but I will say not as a cule but as a football fan that the game would be best if Barcelona scored first. Something tells me Man Utd score first they'd put 10 men behind the ball and squeeze the life out of it, whilst Barcelona without 3 first choice defenders wouldn't be able to. Plus it isn't in our makeup to have a shutout. Barça scoring first would lead to the best game for mee as both teams would go for it.
- Status
