|
This was probalby the most intense CL Season ever!
Both semis and the finals were so heartbreaking, and the whole story could have been written by a hollywood story 
But i really think that subbing Müller with van FUCKING Buyten was the worst decision a coach ever made.
They had this, it was fucking 17 to 1 or smth like this in corners hahaha if i look at this from a neutral position it is hilarious, but sad for bayern
|
wow.... i did not read the other posts here of some retarded people that dont know anything about today's football...
this is just a sad sad sad day for european football. undeserved as anything... 90 minutes defense.. hey... no comment
bastards
|
On May 20 2012 07:31 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:28 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves. Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated. If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded. If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal. Weather is the only luck factor but eh, A referee decision? What if the ball swerves in an unpredictable way? Goal line technology? Refereeing decision such as what? That's a very vague thing for me to capitalise on but if you make every tackle cleanly and get the ball either through stopping it completely / noticible ball direction change from the challenge in theory you should be fine. Ball swerving shouldn't be a factor because you'd have stopped the shot in the first place or read the shot better, as a goalie it's your job to stop that happening and learn the swerve patterns. Goal line technology is just horse shit on so many levels and I hate fifa / uefa.
Referee decision of a handball, a red card, a penalty, a free kick?
In Theory? What on earth mate.... THEORY. This is practice, this is playing football at a professional level for 90 minutes.
Honestly, if you really don't think luck is a factor then you are just plain ignorant. End of. No one in the history of football has ever argued that luck is not a factor.
|
On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote:
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument.
No it isn't
|
We had unbelievable amounts of luck through this champions league run, but I am so happy for the team at the moment. Next season, there will be room for improvement, but savoring the moment is very nice right now.
Also, that could have been Drogba's last kick for Chelsea. How fitting.
|
On May 20 2012 07:34 TranceStorm wrote:
We had unbelievable amounts of luck through this champions league run, but I am so happy for the team at the moment. Next season, there will be room for improvement, but savoring the moment is very nice right now.
Also, that could have been Drogba's last kick for Chelsea. How fitting.
Its always best to retire at the highest of peaks.
|
On May 20 2012 07:33 Dr.Lettuce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:31 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:28 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves. Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated. If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded. If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal. Weather is the only luck factor but eh, A referee decision? What if the ball swerves in an unpredictable way? Goal line technology? Refereeing decision such as what? That's a very vague thing for me to capitalise on but if you make every tackle cleanly and get the ball either through stopping it completely / noticible ball direction change from the challenge in theory you should be fine. Ball swerving shouldn't be a factor because you'd have stopped the shot in the first place or read the shot better, as a goalie it's your job to stop that happening and learn the swerve patterns. Goal line technology is just horse shit on so many levels and I hate fifa / uefa. Referee decision of a handball, a red card, a penalty, a free kick? In Theory? What on earth mate.... THEORY. This is practice, this is playing football at a professional level for 90 minutes. Honestly, if you really don't think luck is a factor then you are just plain ignorant. End of. No one in the history of football has ever argued that luck is not a factor.
I never implied luck was not a factor, I merely said there are ways to mitigate the luck factor. You on the otherhand seem to be taking my argument out of context and thinking I said there is no luck in football.
|
On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote:
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't
I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins.
Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda.
|
On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote:
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda.
I dread to think what half this thread would feel if they watched Stoke v Arsenal / Man City / Chelsea / Man United.
|
I hate to admit it, but chelsea won vs the best european team ( barca) and the second best (munich) so they kinda deserved to get the title
EDIT: And as we all now, the best thing that could have happende to chelsea was that Terry couldn't play because we all know Terry's ability to shoot penalties ^^
|
On May 20 2012 07:33 mevshero wrote:
wow.... i did not read the other posts here of some retarded people that dont know anything about today's football...
this is just a sad sad sad day for european football. undeserved as anything... 90 minutes defense.. hey... no comment
bastards
You can't lose if they don't score. It's a strategy when you have two great Ivory coast forwards being sent long balls to try to steal one while playing great defense to disallow opposing goals.
Hate the strategy not the players.
|
On May 20 2012 07:36 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:33 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:28 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:21 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
Yeah seriously, unlucky?
We're Bayern unlucky that around 50% of their shots weren't even on target. How about that fact that a lot of them were shots from inside the penalty area?
God honestly, people making comparisons between football and starcraft.
This is football, this is a game where luck is a factor, where weather conditions, a deflection, a red card can change it all. And it can happen in any game at any time.
Football is not a statistics sport, there is not a correct way to play. Fucking get over your selves. Luck is a factor, but luck can be mitigated. If you never put a foot wrong, you'll never get carded. If you always manage to get yourself infront of the shot perfectly, the shot will never get deflected towards goal. Weather is the only luck factor but eh, A referee decision? What if the ball swerves in an unpredictable way? Goal line technology? Refereeing decision such as what? That's a very vague thing for me to capitalise on but if you make every tackle cleanly and get the ball either through stopping it completely / noticible ball direction change from the challenge in theory you should be fine. Ball swerving shouldn't be a factor because you'd have stopped the shot in the first place or read the shot better, as a goalie it's your job to stop that happening and learn the swerve patterns. Goal line technology is just horse shit on so many levels and I hate fifa / uefa. Referee decision of a handball, a red card, a penalty, a free kick? In Theory? What on earth mate.... THEORY. This is practice, this is playing football at a professional level for 90 minutes. Honestly, if you really don't think luck is a factor then you are just plain ignorant. End of. No one in the history of football has ever argued that luck is not a factor. I never implied luck was not a factor, I merely said there are ways to mitigate the luck factor. You on the otherhand seem to be taking my argument out of context and thinking I said there is no luck in football.
hmmm... fair enough then.
|
On May 20 2012 07:33 mevshero wrote:
wow.... i did not read the other posts here of some retarded people that dont know anything about today's football...
this is just a sad sad sad day for european football. undeserved as anything... 90 minutes defense.. hey... no comment
bastards
I, too, find contradictions amusing.
|
On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote:
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda.
I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end.
|
On May 20 2012 07:40 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:22 Shotcoder wrote:
The way Chelsea plays may be ugly as all hell, but it still wins games. And winning games is all that matters folks. Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda. I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end.
A good offensive display should get rewarded, but a good defensive display shouldn't?
|
On May 20 2012 07:41 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:40 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:On May 20 2012 07:24 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
Winning games shouldn't be all that matters. This isn't a war. Playing attractively should be a consideration. It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy. You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are. I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda. I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end. A good offensive display should get rewarded, but a good defensive display shouldn't?
There can be beauty in defensive play, some Italian teams have made art out of it. I can admire that. But Chelsea's play in the Champions League has just been ugly.
|
On May 20 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:41 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:40 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
[quote]
It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy.
You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are.
I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda. I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end. A good offensive display should get rewarded, but a good defensive display shouldn't? There can be beauty in defensive play, some Italian teams have made art out of it. I can admire that. But Chelsea's play in the Champions League has just been ugly.
Please refer me to these beautiful games, I thought Matteo had made some beautiful tactical defensive displays, almost good enough to rival Gus Hiddinks v Barcalona, what parts of Chelsea's defensive display was ugly? Was it the way we blocked shots? The way we passed the ball out from the back with 1 touch?
|
On May 20 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:41 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:40 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:27 Dr.Lettuce wrote:
[quote]
It should be a consideration. But Chelsea would have been utterly stupid to play a style of football that there team was not suited to. Rather bland back 4 compared to what they're used to. Additionally the loss of strong midfield runners affected their strategy.
You are right, but if attractiveness compromises your chances of winning then you seriously have to question what your goals actually are.
I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different. You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda. I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end. A good offensive display should get rewarded, but a good defensive display shouldn't? There can be beauty in defensive play, some Italian teams have made art out of it. I can admire that. But Chelsea's play in the Champions League has just been ugly.
well cant blame them for playing result oriented. I must say, that goal by drogba looked pretty damn good.
|
I love Arsenal, but man our fans are so fucking sensitive its fucking ridiculous.
|
On May 20 2012 07:46 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:41 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:40 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:36 Shotcoder wrote:On May 20 2012 07:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Denzil wrote:On May 20 2012 07:32 Crushinator wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote:On May 20 2012 07:31 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I don't really disagree with you. But I do think losing gloriously is sometimes better than winning badly, in football. Different people are different.
You don't sound bitter at all. I am very bitter, so what? It's clouding your ability to formulate a decent argument. No it isn't I'm all for playing fancy if you have the player to do it, but vs Barca and Bayern they were down a man from the 36th minute and had 4 big suspensions, you have to adapt and playing extremely ugly defensive football can do that for you. Hell doing it against better teams is usually what steals you wins. Just a bit of clarification, I'm a Chelsea fan but I kinda wanted to see Bayern win at home,,,just kinda. I don't actually blame Chelsea all that much. I'm just sad and bitter that it happened. Its a matter of aesthetics. I prefer to see attractive and offensive football, or failing that, just good solid football, and I like to see that play rewarded in the end. A good offensive display should get rewarded, but a good defensive display shouldn't? There can be beauty in defensive play, some Italian teams have made art out of it. I can admire that. But Chelsea's play in the Champions League has just been ugly. Please refer me to these beautiful games, I thought Matteo had made some beautiful tactical defensive displays, almost good enough to rival Gus Hiddinks v Barcalona, what parts of Chelsea's defensive display was ugly? Was it the way we blocked shots? The way we passed the ball out from the back with 1 touch?
Its more the way Chelsea did not seem to attempt to create any opportunities to score from a counter attack, didn't exploit weaknesses, just kinda hung in there being completely uncreative. But to each their own, if you enjoy this kind of football, then I can't stop you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2455
1953
697
EPT
