My Opinion on chelsea's victory over Bayern

[ibbz]

Chelsea are totally fake
They turned up to play for penalties, with the money they've spent one would've expected them to actually turn up and play, attack and control, but they played like a second rate side.
Shit team with shit support, all based on a crminal oligarch gangsters billions. i'd rather support Arsenal, at least they actually try and play and go for it. All chelsea did was defend for their lives, they were at sixes and sevens at times, and only bayern's poor finishing saved them from total humiliation, and whether it payed off or not, they were pathetic, utterly pathetic and cringeworthy watching players getting paid £100,000's a week playing like Stranraer against Man United, defending for their lives and turning up in order to defend and play for penalties.

Is this what football is all about? Spending billions and playing like shit?

 

[Kingellesar]

Chelsea F.C will NEVER play attractive football.

My mate loves that, he wants them to grind out results and is happy with that. I guess it can work but he won't listen about their league form, to me they are on a decline, you don't go from being title challengers to 6th place without something being severely wrong, the spine of the team will be gone/past it next season. Drogba most likely gone, Essien looks a shadow of his former self, Terry has made so many mistakes this season and Lampard is looking worse every game he plays. Mikel hasn't turned out to be the player they hoped either.

 

[DEFchenkOE]

Chelsea are totally fake
They turned up to play for penalties, with the money they've spent one would've expected them to actually turn up and play, attack and control, but they played like a second rate side.
Shit team with shit support, all based on a crminal oligarch gangsters billions. i'd rather support Arsenal, at least they actually try and play and go for it. All chelsea did was defend for their lives, they were at sixes and sevens at times, and only bayern's poor finishing saved them from total humiliation, and whether it payed off or not, they were pathetic, utterly pathetic and cringeworthy watching players getting paid £100,000's a week playing like Stranraer against Man United, defending for their lives and turning up in order to defend and play for penalties.

Is this what football is all about? Spending billions and playing like shit?

Unfortunately it seems like it is, you only have to look at the current premier league champions, fa cup and CL holders.

Soon we might as well not play the games and just base the league table on wage budget. If the clubs had made all this money that they were spending I could accept it, but it's literally just like a lottery win.

 

[Kingstheman]

I was reading that in response to supposedly 'defensive' and 'boring' football around the 1990 World Cup, the pass-back rule was introduced in order to make the game quicker and less defensive.

I think everyone would agree that since then, teams have had to adjust and to learn how to play football out of that situation.

So, what to do about teams like Chelsea that defend their 18 yard box with 10 - 11 men and then play the odd counter-attack with a 'bully' up-front? Well, they aren't breaking any rules. This is not boxing or judo where a lack of attacking is penalised and can result in a participant losing. It is not an American sport (perhaps being a bit unfair with this term) where teams have to play on until a win or loss is attained. Counter-attacking is a valid strategy and besides it is not as if they are able to pass it back to the goalkeeper any more once they nick the ball from a striker.

So, I got to thinking, how to 'force' teams to play passing/attacking football? Well, I thought about 5-a-side football. In that game one player from your team MUST be in the opposition team's half. This creates an imbalance whereby you always have the same number of or fewer defenders than attackers; there is sometimes a rule that you can't kick the ball very high and very long (although sometimes this is not practical due to the small pitch). But the problem with this rule is that it works for 5-a-side. The difference a one man deficit makes is much more significant.

Creating a rule that forced a player to be in the opposition's half would not be that significant as there are ten outfield players. It would also present a problem as it would conflict with the off-side law on occasion.

So in short, I'm stumped. There is not much I can think of based upon the game in its current format that would force a team to attack and prevent Chelsea playing like they do in the Champion's League and allowing them to 'over-perform' against supposedly better 'footballing' sides. Teams are just going to have to become better - if they can. Catenaccio may no longer exist in it's pure format, total football may have defeated it in the 1970s, the long ball game may work for Bolton, Stoke and Chelsea but not for England, but there is no 'rule' that forces teams to play a certain way. Barcelona could pass 1,016 triangles in a game, have 45 shots, 30 corners, have 85% possession and play the game in Chelsea's defensive third for over half the game. All it takes is one Didier Drogba goal. Indeed, Bayern Munich ended up in a similar situation.

If boxing were football, Joe Calzaghe would never have amounted to much. Throwing punches won't win you a judge's score card in football. We're stuck with it until the second coming of Jesus, or until Blernsball comes into fashion.

Pragmatism in football, rather than philosophy, has won this year. It wasn't necessarily the same last year, in which people would have argued Barcelona's arty approach had crushed the artisan's methods.

 

[ibbz]

I was reading that in response to supposedly 'defensive' and 'boring' football around the 1990 World Cup, the pass-back rule was introduced in order to make the game quicker and less defensive.

I think everyone would agree that since then, teams have had to adjust and to learn how to play football out of that situation.

So, what to do about teams like Chelsea that defend their 18 yard box with 10 - 11 men and then play the odd counter-attack with a 'bully' up-front? Well, they aren't breaking any rules. This is not boxing or judo where a lack of attacking is penalised and can result in a participant losing. It is not an American sport (perhaps being a bit unfair with this term) where teams have to play on until a win or loss is attained. Counter-attacking is a valid strategy and besides it is not as if they are able to pass it back to the goalkeeper any more once they nick the ball from a striker.

So, I got to thinking, how to 'force' teams to play passing/attacking football? Well, I thought about 5-a-side football. In that game one player from your team MUST be in the opposition team's half. This creates an imbalance whereby you always have the same number of or fewer defenders than attackers; there is sometimes a rule that you can't kick the ball very high and very long (although sometimes this is not practical due to the small pitch). But the problem with this rule is that it works for 5-a-side. The difference a one man deficit makes is much more significant.

Creating a rule that forced a player to be in the opposition's half would not be that significant as there are ten outfield players. It would also present a problem as it would conflict with the off-side law on occasion.

So in short, I'm stumped. There is not much I can think of based upon the game in its current format that would force a team to attack and prevent Chelsea playing like they do in the Champion's League and allowing them to 'over-perform' against supposedly better 'footballing' sides. Teams are just going to have to become better - if they can. Catenaccio may no longer exist in it's pure format, total football may have defeated it in the 1970s, the long ball game may work for Bolton, Stoke and Chelsea but not for England, but there is no 'rule' that forces teams to play a certain way. Barcelona could pass 1,016 triangles in a game, have 45 shots, 30 corners, have 85% possession and play the game in Chelsea's defensive third for over half the game. All it takes is one Didier Drogba goal. Indeed, Bayern Munich ended up in a similar situation.

If boxing were football, Joe Calzaghe would never have amounted to much. Throwing punches won't win you a judge's score card in football. We're stuck with it until the second coming of Jesus, or until Blernsball comes into fashion.

Pragmatism in football, rather than philosophy, has won this year. It wasn't necessarily the same last year, in which people would have argued Barcelona's arty approach had crushed the artisan's methods.

Very good post man!

Sorry for the very late reply.

My point was that unlike teams who haven't the resources to buy players, Chelsea have and do, yet with all this wealth and expense they are still shit.

Oh well, here's to next season and Spurs