Chelsea v Barca 2nd Leg

[Bonjour]

That was across two legs..

 

[kcmei]

they still used the same tactics across two legs

 

[mil1lion]

I fancy Barca in the Final, but it really could go either way. I think Xavi and Iniesta are a cut above anything Man Utd have in the middle. Be it Carrick and Park or Anderson or Scholes. The key will be that Henry, Eto'o and Messi are all fit. And seeing as the League is all but tied up, they will get plenty of rest. I think Henry was a big loss to Barca in the week. He is the only of the 3 attackers who plays with any real width. Iniesta and Messi coming infield to a congested Chelsea side was always going to be a problem on the smallish pitch. It will be up to Barca to score at least a couple of goals though, because their defence wont keep a clean sheet. I'm really looking to it though. I just hope both teams put on a special match.

 

[kcmei]

It will be a bored draw mate... and barca wins on penalty shootout

 

[Shanks]

Lets hope its a high scoring 5-4 game, with a last minute winner from one of the teams!!

 

[spursandbarca]

last year ferguson bought the bus as well. the stupid drunk deco missed 3 quality chances.

La Liga will be won on sunday after Madrid lose in La Mestalla, The copa won on wednesday and then we can rotate for the last 3 la liga games and make sure everyone is fit.

 

[KentuckyYid]

I think Utd will win this be it in normal time, ET or penalties.

In fact I'm praying for it as I know it would piss Platini off.

 

[Coyboy]

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.

I would say we differ but not fundamentally. I just don't see the pleasure in a team passing it around without penetration, without good wing play and without end product. On the second note, as you admit Alves was awful putting crosses in Wedsneday. Barcelona are clearly capable of this but didn't show it and for me didn't deserve to go through.

Do me a favour, disagree with me but don't try to please yourself and look down on me by claiming I 'misunderstand' football. I don't think it is easy at all to stop Barcelona playing and do enough at the other end to win the game. On the first point, Chelsea is the only team that has stopped them at home and came as close as possible to stopping them away. I agree they got lucky with Krikic missing a sitter and a possibly penatly but I feel for how the defence and goalkeeper played they deserved that luck.

I agree it is difficult to coach the players like Guardiola does, when it works. Guardiola basically didn't change his tactics to beat Chelsea and as you admit played players out of position. I think that was a tad arrogant and Chelsea, for their sins, knew what they were up against- neutralised it and scored, created gilt-edged chances and opportunities from which they were denied penalties.

Would it have been inconceivable for sake of argument, Drogba to have been let alone in the first half and gone through and scored? Would it have been impossible for the ref to give a penalty against Pique and Lampard made it two nil? Would it have been inconceivable for Drogba to have scored his piss easy chance and Chelsea win two nil? If this had happened, indeed if Iniesta hadn't scored and it had finished one nil, it would have been a tactical masterclass from Hiddink.

You think the best way to play football is passing and moving comewhat may. I like football that involves that but with penetration by having the courage to try and audacious pass, for players to get in behind defenders and in the end score goals. Barca didn't do this. Chelsea certainly didn't do this but that isn't their style. You cannot like Chelsea for what they are but you cannot blame them for using their tools at their disposal. They don't have a Messi, a Xavi or an Iniesta.

Yes Barcelona went through but via one of those unpredictable occurrences that aren't results of style just misfortune and stunning technique. The goals were eerily similar, except I think Cech would have stood a better chance of saving if he had gone with his left hand. Valdes had no chance.

I didn't see Essien's challenge so can't comment and kind of echo his comments versus Drogba but as much as a diver as he may be, he should have got a penalty first half no question. You could see his shirt coming off and then the foul bringing him down. I wouldn't necessarily say that saying 'we can't string three passes together' is pragmatic though maybe by your hyperbolical standards, but I take the point. It's just you have got to play to your strengths and I felt Chelsea did this.

I would sooner see United win in the final because they are robust defensively as they are attractive going forward and for me that is what a balanced team is about and one that deserves to be a the top of the tree. I consider defending and goalkeeping as important and artistic as passing and keeping the ball. You may not, no worries.

 

[Garm]

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=512/newsid=828015.html

I'm looking forward to see UEFAs decision.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I would say we differ but not fundamentally. I just don't see the pleasure in a team passing it around without penetration, without good wing play and without end product. On the second note, as you admit Alves was awful putting crosses in Wedsneday. Barcelona are clearly capable of this but didn't show it and for me didn't deserve to go through.

Do me a favour, disagree with me but don't try to please yourself and look down on me by claiming I 'misunderstand' football. I don't think it is easy at all to stop Barcelona playing and do enough at the other end to win the game. On the first point, Chelsea is the only team that has stopped them at home and came as close as possible to stopping them away. I agree they got lucky with Krikic missing a sitter and a possibly penatly but I feel for how the defence and goalkeeper played they deserved that luck.

I agree it is difficult to coach the players like Guardiola does, when it works. Guardiola basically didn't change his tactics to beat Chelsea and as you admit played players out of position. I think that was a tad arrogant and Chelsea, for their sins, knew what they were up against- neutralised it and scored, created gilt-edged chances and opportunities from which they were denied penalties.

Would it have been inconceivable for sake of argument, Drogba to have been let alone in the first half and gone through and scored? Would it have been impossible for the ref to give a penalty against Pique and Lampard made it two nil? Would it have been inconceivable for Drogba to have scored his piss easy chance and Chelsea win two nil? If this had happened, indeed if Iniesta hadn't scored and it had finished one nil, it would have been a tactical masterclass from Hiddink.

You think the best way to play football is passing and moving comewhat may. I like football that involves that but with penetration by having the courage to try and audacious pass, for players to get in behind defenders and in the end score goals. Barca didn't do this. Chelsea certainly didn't do this but that isn't their style. You cannot like Chelsea for what they are but you cannot blame them for using their tools at their disposal. They don't have a Messi, a Xavi or an Iniesta.

Yes Barcelona went through but via one of those unpredictable occurrences that aren't results of style just misfortune and stunning technique. The goals were eerily similar, except I think Cech would have stood a better chance of saving if he had gone with his left hand. Valdes had no chance.

I didn't see Essien's challenge so can't comment and kind of echo his comments versus Drogba but as much as a diver as he may be, he should have got a penalty first half no question. You could see his shirt coming off and then the foul bringing him down. I wouldn't necessarily say that saying 'we can't string three passes together' is pragmatic though maybe by your hyperbolical standards, but I take the point. It's just you have got to play to your strengths and I felt Chelsea did this.

I would sooner see United win in the final because they are robust defensively as they are attractive going forward and for me that is what a balanced team is about and one that deserves to be a the top of the tree. I consider defending and goalkeeping as important and artistic as passing and keeping the ball. You may not, no worries.

My first comment in this thread establishes that I have an appreciation of the neccessity of good defending. My biggest gripe with Jol was that he singularly failed to spot that our biggest weakness was in defence/goalkeeper area and said so a million times. The first thing Ramos did when he came in was sort this area out.

If you analyse the two ties, debatable incidents went both ways. Henry should have had the clearest penalty of all, Essien should havce been red carded. Barcelona received the worst refereeing mistake when their player was wrongly sent off, something you seem to forget to mention when talking about "possible penalties".

But let's face facts, in two games against a very expensively assembled Chelsea team and playing for some of it with ten men Barcelona managed to allow Chelsea only one goal, a long range swinger from Essiens wrong foot. Chelsea despite devoting 180 minutes to purely preventing Barcelona from scoring conceded the same. The difference being that Iniesta actually meant what he did. His shot involved deliberate skill, Essien's was a swing of the boot. Which is a perfect metaphor for the tie I think.


And as far as defending goes, your theory about defending is nieve (which is why I wasn't being condescending when I said you don't understand football completely) as the best way a team can defend is retain possession of the ball. The opposition can not score when you are in possession of the ball.

 

[Coyboy]

Funny you only mention the red card when you buddy did and if you are going down the road of Essien's goal being 'lucky' you clearly have lost all sense of objectivity and reason.

It's not naive at all, it would have been naive of Chelsea to think they could have beaten Barca at their own game. They played to their strengths in defending zonally and man to man and did id superbly for 185 minutes.

I don't think Henry's was a clear a penalty and that the sheer number not to mention blatant nature of Chelsea's three hardly make it a swings and roundabouts issue. The fact Barca only 'allowed one goal' is naive, they stopped them scoring illegally or getting in a position to do three times and Chelsea themselves missed the chances.

Why don't we agree to disagree instead of you trying to score points and condescend me, it hasn't worked before re Ramos/Jol/Rednapp/unlawful firearms or Israel so you should really stop and keep to debating not one upmanship.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

If you're going to claim Essien's goal wasn't more fortuitous than Iniesta's then you are surely offering yourself up as a sacrificial lamb to the god of condescension.

 

[CaptainCat]

I think we can safely say that they both intended to do what they did. Essien's was just a lot harder to execute, which is why it could be considered "luckier" that it came off. Lucky isn't really the right word though. And it's a pointless debate, by the way.

 

[Michey]

I think we can safely say that they both intended to do what they did. Essien's was just a lot harder to execute, which is why it could be considered "luckier" that it came off. Lucky isn't really the right word though. And it's a pointless debate, by the way.

He may not only mean the strike, perhaps he thinks of the seconds before the actual shoot. Then i'd say it was very lucky.

 

[Coyboy]

If you're going to claim Essien's goal wasn't more fortuitous than Iniesta's then you are surely offering yourself up as a sacrificial lamb to the god of condescension.

As you were when you claimed every goal Bent scores is lucky. I wasn't saying one was more anything than the other. You could say Iniesta's was more lucky because Cech used the wrong hand to reach for it and that it popped up luckily, as did Essien's. So you could just be objective and say both were terrific goals.

Volleying with your wrong foot while under pressure and get the dip and power is not lucky, in my opinion. You may think it is, ok, but it is pretty amusing to try to condescend someone who may believe the latter description denotes good technique rather than luck but then your opinion of Darren Bent doesn't let you gain any impartiality so I am not surprised really.

 

[mil1lion]

Who cares, Barca won. And who can deny that Barca deserve to be in a Champions League Final this season? They have been top class all season in all competitions. Compare that to a Chelsea side that only really came good in the 2nd half of the season. However it was won, it was won by the right club in my mind. And now we get to see the 2 very best Clubs in Europe going head to head. Both are on top form and both are likely to win their respective League Title. We should find out who really is the best team in Europe at the moment.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

As you were when you claimed every goal Bent scores is lucky. I wasn't saying one was more anything than the other. You could say Iniesta's was more lucky because Cech used the wrong hand to reach for it and that it popped up luckily, as did Essien's. So you could just be objective and say both were terrific goals.

Volleying with your wrong foot while under pressure and get the dip and power is not lucky, in my opinion. You may think it is, ok, but it is pretty amusing to try to condescend someone who may believe the latter description denotes good technique rather than luck but then your opinion of Darren Bent doesn't let you gain any impartiality so I am not surprised really.

You don't think when someone shoots and it cannons off Bent for a goal that that is luck ? Comparing Bent to Iniesta ?

It's funny how when I was saying that when we were dominating teams under Ramos and I said there were mitigating factors (refereeing decisions, lack of strike power, team gelling and bad luck) you wouldn't have it. But poor old Chelsea get comprehensively outplayed and loose and you can find every excuse in the book to justify your opinion that they were "unluckily robbed".

And for someone that is so offended by condescension you don't mind dishing it out:

Quote Coyboy:

"I can think for myself just as I assume most here can, but the problem is you get the detritus of humanity on here sometimes"

"The fact that you write in text speak indicates your intelligence"

"Instead they win by hook or by crook and it is all 'aren't we wonderful'. That is exactly, in part, why they are not liked in Spain- the arrogant, self-congratulating holier than thou attitude which makes them sore winners and sore losers. A lot of teams aren't much better, and you seldom see a Freddie-Brett Lee moment in football, but Barca are the epitome of it sometimes."



Unlike Chelsea, who really take loosing well.

You want a side order of ridicule to go with your main course of condescension ? Hypocrasy for desert ?

You really are a masochist.

 

[Michey]

Who cares, Barca won.

Coyboy cares and it's eating him up that Chelsea, a team he "admires and respects lost this game.

We shall now let him mourn in peace. I think it's best for us all and can put an and to this thread. It's soon time to start a thread about the final, you know the one that includes Barca :up:

 

[Coyboy]

You don't think when someone shoots and it cannons off Bent for a goal that that is luck ? Comparing Bent to Iniesta ?

It's funny how when I was saying that when we were dominating teams under Ramos and I said there were mitigating factors (refereeing decisions, lack of strike power, team gelling and bad luck) you wouldn't have it. But poor old Chelsea get comprehensively outplayed and loose and you can find every excuse in the book to justify your opinion that they were "unluckily robbed".

And for someone that is so offended by condescension you don't mind dishing it out:

Quote Coyboy:

"I can think for myself just as I assume most here can, but the problem is you get the detritus of humanity on here sometimes"

"The fact that you write in text speak indicates your intelligence"

"Instead they win by hook or by crook and it is all 'aren't we wonderful'. That is exactly, in part, why they are not liked in Spain- the arrogant, self-congratulating holier than thou attitude which makes them sore winners and sore losers. A lot of teams aren't much better, and you seldom see a Freddie-Brett Lee moment in football, but Barca are the epitome of it sometimes."



Unlike Chelsea, who really take loosing well.

You want a side order of ridicule to go with your main course of condescension ? Hypocrasy for desert ?

You really are a masochist.

Yes I compared Bent to Iniesta, not only that I think he is better than the whole Barca team combined. Come on, of course one or two of his goals have been lucky but when he scores so many they can't all be lucky, anyone who knows anything about being a striker knows that.

I am not going over Ramos' again and the mitigating factors really were only a small part of it as shown when Rednapp started getting results from the get go. I don't think Chelsea were 'comprehensively' outplayed, they created the better chances. You may not have liked their tactics, but that says more about your likes and dislikes, however defensible they are, then whether one team was outplayed by tother.

Besides, comparing one game to a whole start to a season, not to mention the back end of last, makes no sense. On the point that Barca are the better side aesthetically and have been over the course of the season therefore deserve to go through- well why have knockouts in the first place, if one team cannot beat another, however better they are or have been, what's the point? Chelsea are a weaker side than Barca and set their stall out accordingly and were unlucky.

On the condescension point, I believe if someone actually puts forward a defensible argument rather than 'you are obviously a Chelsea fan' 'you can't call yourself a spurs supporter, 'get the fuck out' and if someone can be bothered to write cogently, whether I agree or disagree (ie Mil1lion) then they don't deserve condescension. But what you frequently do as a defensive mechanism with me is say 'you don't understand' as if I should crawl back to my corner. You have used it in numerous debates and it is rather a weak and easy route to take and it isn't necessary.

You think onething I think tother, it doesn't mean one of us is more enlightened than the other. But when you say things like 'you don't understand football' or 'Essien's goal was lucky' what do you expect?

 

[Mullers]

If Uefa are not going to look at Fletcher's red card again then I don't see why the hell they should punish Drogba and Ballack when they were not sent off. They can't have it both ways.