madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. utter s*** opinion, but it is your opinion the majority watching tonight wanted to be entertained, the fans of those clubs wanted to win regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. utter shit opinion, but it is your opinion He's right though. I'd eat the FA Cup and shit it out again just to see us win it. How we played en route would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Bang on. Specially the last sentence, was another boring match up until the end tonight I thought, much more exciting when Chelsea were in possession too. Only really boring because of one team, unfortunately. Not totally, Barca's need to keep the ball no matter what kills the game stone dead iyam, yes they're great at keeping the ball but they try to over do it. They take any pace and excitement out the game but this dreary three yard pass and move game that a lot of the time gets them nowhere is very boring to me. Give me a premiership game any day of the week, not as pretty but a hell of a lot more entertaining. They only do it because teams have 11 men behind the ball. There isn't any space for them to play through balls or dribble into. It's all congested because of the other team's defensive strategy (which has been effective about 4 or 5 times out of 50 = 10% success rate). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Your spot on it goes back to that ridiculous quote we got tagged with: "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" of course we'd rather win, but Chelsea weren't even playing to win they were playing not to get beat, particulalrly in the first leg. Chelsea are good enough to play a bit of football and still win, if I was a season ticket holder at Stamford Bridge I'd be completely underwhelmed by what I saw tonight. They literally had two banks of five in front of the keeper for large parts of the game, is that really playing to win? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio[b/]. Agreed. But it's one game. Let's hold off the 'Barca isn't as good as everyone thought' crap and look at the other 50 games they've played this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Your spot on it goes back to that ridiculous quote we got tagged with: "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" of course we'd rather win, but Chelseas weren't even playing to win they were playing not to get beat, particulalrly in the first leg. Chelsea are good enought to play a bit of football and still win, if I was a season ticket holder at Stamford Bridge I'd be completely underwhelmed by what I saw tonight. They literally had two banks of five in front of the keeper for large parts of the game, is that really playing to win? Spot on tactics in the first game, gave them a great chance to win it today. Early goal scored, they're winning at this point. They reckoned the best chance of them to get the win was by parking the bus, and they really couldn't have been closer to being successful, against the team that is arguably the best on the planet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Agree also, but further than just as a spectacle, attacking in the style of a Man Utd is way more effective than Arsenal/Barca's walk-it-in strategy. Invariably sides with good defenders/grafters will just park the bus, and it will be somewhat ineffectual for Barca/Arsenal. I think France struggled in the same way after they won Euro 2000 - they struggled in qualifiers to break down poor, poor teams and drew 0-0 against Israel etc because despite their plethora of talent, they had no penetration. "No edge... no eye of the tiger " I can't believe you've just said that. There's a thing called 'small sample size' in statistics, look it up. Just because Barca couldn't score in one game against Chelsea doesn't mean that you can conclude that their style is ineffective. In fact, I'd say the 100 (yes, one fucking hundred) goals they've scored in the league this season, plus the 30 they've scored in the CL (leading the charts in terms of total scored and goals scored per match) shows that their style is incredibly effective. I'd like you to say to the other 37 teams in La Liga, especially Real Madrid, who've been thumped for 8 goals this season, to say that all they needed to do was park the bus and that's Barca contained. Alright, alright, hold your horses mate! I know you like Barca and you've been doggedly defending them all night, but breathe first... In fairness to the point I'm making, I do mean at the very top level - which is why I think Barcelona have had so little luck cutting open English sides, let alone thumping them as easily as they do everyone else over the past few years. My statement wasn't formed from just these two legs [the last half hour of which I missed!!]. Granted, you may say that Barcelona are a better side this year than they have been in previous years, but their attacking mentality has always been there. This serves to prove my point that if you do want to win playing like Brazil 1970, you have to be Brazil 1970 in quality - ie. capable of cutting up clubs at the highest level consistently. If not, you need a more penetrative style. EDIT: Or at least the capability of a more penetrative style. Do you know how devastating Arsenal would be if they shot more than once every 20 minutes? You're entitled to your opinion, and this is hardly something I can quantify for you, but there you go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://ext2.elmundodeportivo.es/videos/md2007/20090506/goliniestamp3mp3-1241644636736.mp3 great reactions dave and andy were sooooo poised you know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Check out ballacks face in this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00545/iniesta_goal_585_545779a.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 right, there was 1 clear penalty that was the piquet handball but remember barca had a nail on penalty in the nou camp against henry chelsea just defended for 90 mins and got 1 excellent goal whoever said chelsea should of scored 4 or 5 tonight need's there eyes checking tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Check out ballacks face in this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00545/iniesta_goal_585_545779a.jpg Begging to be photoshopped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Check out ballacks face in this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00545/iniesta_goal_585_545779a.jpg "Pokeball Go" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 LOVE Drogba's reaction, diving prick doesn't deserve to play football again the way he play acts. Should join the Royal Shakespeare Company ffs. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45743000/jpg/_45743031_drogba_ap466.jpg Alas poor Yorick.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leazes.ender Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Its UEFA regulations, fans have to be a certain distance from the pitch or something. So at SJP are a ok as there is an area between pitch and the stand but stam bridge is right on the pitch so they have to have empty seats. It was the back 5/6 rows though of the upper tier of the Mathew Harding stand I think its called. The attendance was only 37857 and that is thousands under capacity. No reason for top tier seats to not be used. Looked like Barca had bigger than normal away allocation too. Surely they'd have sold out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I disagree with their tactics in the first game. The 0-0 benefits neither team. Barca wanted to score a few and secure the tie, Chelsea needed the away goal because it would have meant that Barca needed to attack from the start. Same scenario as last year. The fact that both Man Utd and Chelsea scored awesome goals doesn't mean that the tactics they employed produced the highest probability of them winning. You can't bank on a Scholes 30 yard strike into the top corner. You can't bank on an Essien half-volley with his weaker foot to hit the underside of the bar and bounce in. It's not something that you can rationally expect before the game. Yeah, Man Utd won last year and Chelsea were a minute or so from winning today but from an objective standpoint, the tactics they employed didn't give them a great chance of winning the whole tie because they still had to score and neither of them showed any intent of scoring before the wonder goals. In the long-run, if this Barca team can continue playing this way, they'll dominate the CL every year because the type of goals they score and their style of play means it's easier to score goals/dominate matches whereas Chelsea are always one goal away from being knocked out. From a probability standpoint, because of the possession and chances that Barca normally create, they're more likely to win matches than the team they're playing against. If Man Utd and Barca played against each other 10 times last season, I'd bet that Barca would come out on top more often than Man Utd did because the way they dictate the game, pass the ball and attempt to score makes it much more likely that they will in fact score more goals than any other team. I'm speaking on statistical terms, though, so this obviously rules out a bunch of 30 yard strikes by Scholes because of how unlikely it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 LOVE Drogba's reaction, diving prick doesn't deserve to play football again the way he play acts. Should join the Royal Shakespeare Company ffs. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45743000/jpg/_45743031_drogba_ap466.jpg Alas poor Yorick.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest timmy boy Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Its UEFA regulations, fans have to be a certain distance from the pitch or something. So at SJP are a ok as there is an area between pitch and the stand but stam bridge is right on the pitch so they have to have empty seats. It was the back 5/6 rows though of the upper tier of the Mathew Harding stand I think its called. The attendance was only 37857 and that is thousands under capacity. No reason for top tier seats to not be used. Looked like Barca had bigger than normal away allocation too. Surely they'd have sold out? The away fans that Barca took is the full allocation, it's just in England hardly any teams take it. They normally just take the corner like us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Check out ballacks face in this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00545/iniesta_goal_585_545779a.jpg "Pokeball Go" Ok I'll shoop that give me five mins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Your spot on it goes back to that ridiculous quote we got tagged with: "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" of course we'd rather win, but Chelseas weren't even playing to win they were playing not to get beat, particulalrly in the first leg. Chelsea are good enought to play a bit of football and still win, if I was a season ticket holder at Stamford Bridge I'd be completely underwhelmed by what I saw tonight. They literally had two banks of five in front of the keeper for large parts of the game, is that really playing to win? Spot on tactics in the first game, gave them a great chance to win it today. Early goal scored, they're winning at this point. They reckoned the best chance of them to get the win was by parking the bus, and they really couldn't have been closer to being successful, against the team that is arguably the best on the planet. But that's the point I'm trying to make. Did the fans, who are supposed to support one of the best teams in the world, travel all the way to the Nou Camp to watch the football they got? There's a difference between shiteing and riving your arse. Teams worse than Chelsea have nicked results from Barca by effectively combining defensive football with an effective counter attacking game, Chelsea didn't even show that, they rarely bothered to cross the half way line. I rarely agree with the Sky Commentary team but they were spot on when they said realistically Chelsea needed two goals tonight to secure a safe passage through to the final. They turned up to sit back and continued to sit back when they scored the first. Does an ambitious team trying to reach the Champions League final really try to hold on a one goal lead against a side capable of scoring at any given moment? It was dull and it was dull because the football they tried to play was too negative. Thankfully it back fired on them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8899/ballackball.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TêteDeMaure Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Never thought i'd want Man United to win anything, but i do now. Hope Ronaldo dicks on them, then join Real in the summer, to do the exact same thing in the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Never thought i'd want Man United to win anything, but i do now. Never thought i'd want Man United to win anything, but i do now. can't see why. i hope barce win by playing the football they played just before christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Never thought i'd want Man United to win anything, but i do now. Hope Ronaldo dicks on them, then join Real in the summer, to do the exact same thing in the league. When I say SIX you say TWO SIX Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TêteDeMaure Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Never thought i'd want Man United to win anything, but i do now. Hope Ronaldo dicks on them, then join Real in the summer, to do the exact same thing in the league. When I say SIX you say TWO SIX You think i'm going to go with the option that you allot to me? FIVE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Its UEFA regulations, fans have to be a certain distance from the pitch or something. So at SJP are a ok as there is an area between pitch and the stand but stam bridge is right on the pitch so they have to have empty seats. It was the back 5/6 rows though of the upper tier of the Mathew Harding stand I think its called. The attendance was only 37857 and that is thousands under capacity. No reason for top tier seats to not be used. Looked like Barca had bigger than normal away allocation too. Surely they'd have sold out? The away fans that Barca took is the full allocation, it's just in England hardly any teams take it. They normally just take the corner like us. On the radio, they were wondering about the empty seats at the back of the Matthew Harding Stand as the game was supposed to be sold out. They decided that the tickets had probably been reserved for the "UEFA Family" (corporates) but they hadn't turned up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts