FC Bayern will be looking to add a 5th Champions League (European Cup) trophy to their vast collection they have aquired over the years, whilst Chelsea will be looking to start their collection with a first. Many tip Bayern to be favorites for the game not only because they are a good team and would probably edge it on a footballing scale but the fact they get to play the final of a the biggest competition in Europe in their backyard.
Gomez vs Drogba
Drogba vs Gomez is going be the key to both teams victory, can Gomez boss the Chelsea back four into submission and dominate like he did vs Real Madrid, or will Drogba get the better of Boateng and whoever his partner is (all be it he turns up) and Chelsea get to play off him and win the game that way. Will be key these two have good games for the goals to be high in the match in my opinion, but who knows Chelsea can defend and well Bayern are German they know what it takes to win.
Robbery vs Chelsea Defence
So, we all know how good Robben and Ribery are, fantastic pace the pair of them, with Robben the quicker of the two and fantastic feet to be able to do what they want with the football. Whether its beating a man to cross or beating a man to get a pop shot on goal Robben and Ribery have done fantastically well this season, and it brings to the question can they do it in the big game? If they do Chelsea will have huge problems in there back four (not first choice back four) and might be overwhelmed by the pace and skill of the Bayern wingers. However if Chelsea shut up shop in the fashion they did vs Barcelona Ribery and Robben should be no problems for them and could be dangerous on the counter attack (Personally i think this will be the way Chelsea play this game). Chelsea have defended like kings to get through their semi final whilst Bayern expressed themselves in the Bernabeu to get into there home final, so how will it go? Chelsea defence dictate or will Bayern's offense obliterate?
Hopefully Luiz and Cahill are fully fit - apparently they are training well at the moment so that is good. I imagine that Bayern will try to overload Bosingwa, so that will definitely be an area of concern.
I also noticed that Robben wears ridiculously tight shirts.
Going to be an easy win for Bayern, i'd say 3-1. Just too strong for Chelsea's defense! They've had a poor season and finished strong, but that won't be enough to topple Bayern who know how to win European cups, unlike Chelsea.
ramires is a pretty huge part of chelsea's defense on the wings, they are gonna miss him tracking back and shutting down either robben or ribery more than any of their other suspensions
Imho Chelsea will try to copy Dortmund from the DFB Pokal final (Dortmund won 5-2 against Bayern) and will fail horribly. But because Alaba and Badstuber are missing and Drogba is amazing Chelsea will score one goal.
Concerning Bayern's squad tomorrow: Rafinha on the right and Lahm on the left side is also an option(and I think that Heynckes is going to play that way)
I really expect Torres and Drogba together from the beginning!
Torres and Drogba would give the back four a nightmare, would love to see that
Very unlikely to see that - Chelsea has been playing with only one of the two on the pitch at any time throughout the entire season. When both are on at the same time, the team tends to stagnate a little since both players prefer playing in the same spaces.
On May 19 2012 02:32 andReslic wrote: anyone now when is going to start the final?
If you have turned the setting on in your profile about your time zone the time should be what is wrote in the time i put kick off to be, should auto change to your location
I do not really like either team but I see it going to Chelsea because of the way they play in important games. They gave up on the EPL sure but in the CL they have played fantastically and their players know what it will take to win this game. I see it Chelsea 3 Bayern 1.
As a neutral, I think Bayern will take it 3-2. For a normal game between the two, I would expect maybe a 2-0 win for Bayern, but with players like Badstuber and Alaba out, I don't see them keeping a clean sheet. Also since it's the Champions League final, I expect Chelsea to put up more of a fight against Bayern. They've beaten the odds to get here, I don't think they're gonna give Bayern an easy time. Regardless of what happens, in the end I still think the better team (Bayern) will win.
On May 19 2012 05:21 Elem wrote: I am so god damned hyped for this!!! :D Can't wait to see the Blues finally get the title.
Predicting 3 - 1 to Chelsea, Drogba scores 2, and Robbery will be directly involved in Bayern's only goal!
Or ... Bayern wins 1-0 and robbery will be once again Chelsea's demise.
Excuse me? Again?
On May 19 2012 01:38 TriZen wrote: Going to be an easy win for Bayern, i'd say 3-1. Just too strong for Chelsea's defense! They've had a poor season and finished strong, but that won't be enough to topple Bayern who know how to win European cups, unlike Chelsea.
Yeah, so was barcelonas attack. And Chelsea have won european cups before.
On May 19 2012 01:38 TriZen wrote: Going to be an easy win for Bayern, i'd say 3-1. Just too strong for Chelsea's defense! They've had a poor season and finished strong, but that won't be enough to topple Bayern who know how to win European cups, unlike Chelsea.
Yeah, so was barcelonas attack. And Chelsea have won european cups before.
Chelsea have only won the cup winners cup quite a while ago maybe like 98? and again in the 70s. They have never won anything major.
Bayern the better team and at home it seems hard to expect Chelsea to win. Will still be hoping Chelsea win as they are English and i hate Tottenham. Arsenal fan here
Philipp Lahm deserves to win a major title for once, he is one of the best full backs in the world for quite some time now, and might be the hardest worker in the Bayern squad.
He turned down an offer from Barcelona years ago, a transfer that would have made him two-times Champions League winner by now, because he loves to play for Bayern. (against the advice of his agent)
I'm going for a Bayern win, mostly because they play at home and looked very good against Real. Chelsea have done great to come this far but i doubt they can pull off a surprise win again.
Somehow finals with Munich in them are always pretty easy for me as a german. I am rooting for them, because of national pride and all that jazz, but when they lose it is still delicious to wallow myself in their misery. I am normally a little bit proud that I don't just mindlessly hate on people (I am probably also a little bit too old for that), but I must confess that people like Hoeness, Rummenigge or Lahm are really so extremely unlikeable, that I wish them every loss imaginable. To think that Lahm is the captain of the german squad always makes me sad. Anyway, in 1999 when ManU scored the 1-1, I was in total shock and disbelieve, but when they scored the second goal I was just laughing uncontrollably. So either outcome really is not worrysome for me. If I had to guess I would say a 1-0 Drogba by some counter and then there will emerge an endless defensive slugfest.
On May 19 2012 21:10 Timurid wrote: I want to see Torres score the game winner.
You might need a time machine to go back a few years.
Anyways, I think Bayern will take this. I think they have the better squad and the advantage of playing at home. Gonna say 2-1 with Gomez on the double and Drogba coming up big again.
On May 19 2012 22:59 Flyingcookie wrote: And i am in London right now T.T!(a Hotel near Kings Cross). Someone knows a Place where i can watch it Save :p?
Best weekend in the year? GSL finals with a spectacular MVP, the most stacked MLG, tomorrow we will see the bwers playing and CL finals in 4 hours. welp!
Ok, the whole city is going completly crazy. Never seen something even close to this, even when germany plays in world cup its not half as crowded in biergardens etc.
On May 20 2012 00:20 Fatta wrote: Ok, the whole city is going completly crazy. Never seen something even close to this, even when germany plays in world cup its not half as crowded in biergardens etc.
So nervous!! 2hours 45minutes to go until kick off!! Wish i was in Germany just couldn't get the tickets dammit! So nervous its un true!! COME ON CHELS
On May 20 2012 02:13 analyze wrote: Torres should be getting a start. Bertrand is fine, but Kalou should be playing LM, Torres on the right with mata down the center and drogba up top.
Of course they want to play more defensive vs. Robban BUT Cole is the best Left Back in the league, he can handle Robban himself.
Oh wow, I totally forgot Robben played for München now. Should be fun seeing him against his old club
The closer this gets, the more I think home advantage will play a huge part. But I BELIEVE CHELSEA
Its not Robben himself that is the issue, its the fact that Bayern can overload on the wings with multiple players (Muller and Lahm) - hence, the winger will need to track back quite often. Torres is really very poor defensively, hence the change.
Ref's are always harsh in these kinds of games, so much more so than in any national league games. I wonder if they're trying to avoid any controversy by just calling everything. of course Chelsea haven't exactly benefitted from that in the past few years, especially against Barca...
Hands up - who thought not only would Chelsea not beat Barca but they wouldn't be allowed to do so by the ref?
does any of you mates have an english streaming of the game? i'm watching the italian one but the commentators are embarassing, plus the quality isn't one of the best.
On May 20 2012 04:17 Sanctimonius wrote: Random aside, as I see Ribery clutching his leg from a nothing clip on the calf, whatever happened with his underage prostitute criminal case?
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Weren't players like Benzema involved as well? I wonder what happened.
On May 20 2012 04:17 Sanctimonius wrote: Random aside, as I see Ribery clutching his leg from a nothing clip on the calf, whatever happened with his underage prostitute criminal case?
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Weren't players like Benzema involved as well? I wonder what happened.
On May 20 2012 04:24 Steveling wrote: Gomez is so bad today,lol.
Actually, this is how he usually plays. Fluffs and misses chances until he strikes. He's never been clinical. He relies more on good positioning and anticipation to get him enough chances in a game to score.
Seems to be a fairly even game to me. Sure Bayern have had their chances and seem more likely to score, but Chelsea are definitely the worse of the two teams here and are playing as they should - defensively and try to get something on the break or from a set piece. Just like they had to vs Barca.
wow gomez has had huge chances within 9m from goal and just shoots the ball 10m above it right in front >.< first half got better with time but lets see some goals in 2nd half. More quality in the goal shots
Well atleast Robben is playing well, wish more Bayern players would find some technical competence. Chelsea playing such an ugly syle badly is sad for the final.
Good 1st half by Chelsea, people forgetting our main aim of that first half is to silence the crowd, we are playing away from home in the final plain and simple. We need to get them edgey and not as loud so the bayern players feel that tense atmoshpehere and freeze up a bit and Chelsea pounce.
Really? English guys saw a good first half by Chelsea? They just have been lucky. They are not defending well and had almost no good counter attacks. Maybe it's a typical game by Chelsea and they will win with one chance but it wasn't good at all. :O
On May 20 2012 05:11 NuclearJudas wrote: I'd like to see a yellow for Lahm there. It wasn't as ridiculous as many other dives, but I'd like there to be zero tolerance for that shit.
I would have liked to see a yellow for Bosingwa and for Cole :p
On May 20 2012 05:11 NuclearJudas wrote: I'd like to see a yellow for Lahm there. It wasn't as ridiculous as many other dives, but I'd like there to be zero tolerance for that shit.
I would have liked to see a yellow for Bosingwa and for Cole :p
If they dove as well, I'm all for it. I didn't see the situations where they did.
On May 20 2012 05:13 Telcontar wrote: I can't tell if Bayern suck at set pieces or Chelsea are just very good at defending them. Probably a mixture of both.
Bayern sucks at them, which is something that really pisses me off because you can actually train them.
On May 20 2012 05:13 Telcontar wrote: I can't tell if Bayern suck at set pieces or Chelsea are just very good at defending them. Probably a mixture of both.
Bayern sucks at them, which is something that really pisses me off because you can actually train them.
On May 20 2012 05:14 AgentChaos wrote: y no torres??
Because that means taking Drogba off and he's a better defender at set pieces...etc. He'll probably wait until 80+ minutes before considering throwing Torres into the fray.
This game reminds me of a long Starcraft game where Chelsea contains and starves Bayern. When Bayern about to win, Chelsea go for the super effective counter EDIT: annnnnnnnnd Chelsea screw up the engagement
Do they really have to throw Robben up to set pieces every time? From what I've seen he's really terrible at it but well, I guess I've just seen the wrong matches
On May 20 2012 05:49 Presidenten wrote: Do they really have to throw Robben up to set pieces every time? From what I've seen he's really terrible at it but well, I guess I've just seen the wrong matches
well I guess Ribery will tell to Robben what he thinks about him again :D
For me Cech was the best signing of the billionaire. He's been their most consistent player and their best player. As good as Drogba is he has off games and temper-tantrums. Cech just gets on with being a baller.
On May 20 2012 06:15 NuclearJudas wrote: Yellow card for Torres wtf?
It did kinda look like he screaming 'Fucking la puta!' at the ref. Playing in many countries is the best way to learn to swear in many different languages ;D
On May 20 2012 06:15 NuclearJudas wrote: Yellow card for Torres wtf?
It did kinda look like he screaming 'Fucking la puta!' at the ref. Playing in many countries is the best way to learn to swear in many different languages ;D
On May 20 2012 06:23 Baalthersar wrote: can somebody update plz
Bayern Lahm GOAL Chelsea Mata MISS Bayern Gomez GOAL Chelsea Luiz GOAL
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2
On May 20 2012 06:23 Baalthersar wrote: can somebody update plz
Bayern Lahm GOAL Chelsea Mata MISS Bayern Gomez GOAL Chelsea Luiz GOAL
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2
On May 20 2012 06:23 Baalthersar wrote: can somebody update plz
Bayern Lahm GOAL Chelsea Mata MISS Bayern Gomez GOAL Chelsea Luiz GOAL
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3
On May 20 2012 06:23 Baalthersar wrote: can somebody update plz
Bayern Lahm GOAL Chelsea Mata MISS Bayern Gomez GOAL Chelsea Luiz GOAL
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3 continued Bayern Shweinsteiger MISS 3-3 MATCH POINT CHELSEA
On May 20 2012 06:23 Baalthersar wrote: can somebody update plz
Bayern Lahm GOAL Chelsea Mata MISS Bayern Gomez GOAL Chelsea Luiz GOAL
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3 continued Bayern Shweinsteiger MISS 3-3 MATCH POINT CHELSEA
Bayern Lahm GOAL 1-0 Chelsea Mata MISS 1-0 Bayern Gomez GOAL 2-0 Chelsea Luiz GOAL 2-1 continued Bayern Neuer GOAL 3-1 continued Chelsea Lampard GOAL 3-2 continued Bayern Olic MISS 3-2 continued Chelsea Cole GOAL 3-3 continued Bayern Shweinsteiger MISS 3-3 MATCH POINT CHELSEA continued Chelsea Drogba MATCH POINT - GOAL CHELSEA WIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS THE CHAMPOINS LEAGUE!
games like this make me want to stop watching football. pathetic passive losers luck their way to a title that should be reserved for actually good teams.
leading up to 88min. - check missing penalty in overtime - check leading in penalty shooting - check
This is just too much fail in one game to get any pity from me. And now Chelsea is champion with this kind of football. That's the only thing bothering me.
Whoever coined the term anti-football is a total moron. Maybe it's not pretty. But Chelsea played super fair and defended good. Bayern made the same mistakes that Barca made and in penalties everything can happen apparently.
On May 20 2012 06:32 Malinor wrote: You only get so many strikes...
leading up to 88min. - check missing penalty in overtime - check leading in penalty shooting - check
This is just too much fail in one game to get any pity from me. And now Chelsea is champion with this kind of football. That's the only thing bothering me.
But it sure was entertaining.
you forgot the 50 chances to score before the 88min mark
Well, Chelsea finally have the Champions League, so lucky that Arsenal finished 3rd
I do have a question for everyone complaining about Chelsea here - how would you have liked them to play? They aren't as skillful as Bayern, have older players and more players suspended. They played the only way they could have won, and it's Bayern's fault that they didn't tuck away those many, many chances, including that penalty.
Offense wins games, Defense wins championships - proven right again.
Bayern wasted all those advantages and opportunities (Robben choking AGAIN, after destroying Bayern's hopes for national championship single-handedly) and comeback king Drogba nails it for Chelsea. You may or may not lie their playstyle, but analysing your opponent and finding the appropriate countermeasures has to be appreciated. Whole thing kinda reminds me of Greece taking the 2004 European Cup.
team that finishes 6th in the EPL win the champions league, i dunno, knock out football is just too random sometimes, barca deserved to be in that final not the chelsea bus
How.... many......... chances..... can be missed in 1 game? Whole game long Bayern sat on Chelsea's penalty area, missed all game long, lost a late 1-0 advantage, missed a penalty and finally proceed to lose the cup after they were ahead in penalties...
The only reason I was expecting Bayern to win was cause I thought they didn't have a blood pact against shooting outside the box like Barca has. They are Germans after all. But guess I was wrong, they should shoot more.
On May 20 2012 06:34 Holgerius wrote: Penalty shootouts are so dramatic. Didn't really care which team won, so I could enjoy it from an objective perspective.
Grats Chelsea, I'm really happy for Drogba especially. Damn, the man is happy atm. :D
Feel really sad for Schweinsteiger though. I love him as a player, and it sucks to miss like that.
Be happy for Drogba. Dont be sad for Schweinsteiger. He's an idiot.
On May 20 2012 06:35 mememolly wrote: team that finishes 6th in the EPL win the champions league, i dunno, knock out football is just too random sometimes, barca deserved to be in that final not the chelsea bus
Based on the result of not one but two games, history disagrees with you.
On May 20 2012 06:36 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: How.... many......... chances..... can be missed in 1 game? Whole game long Bayern sat on Chelsea's penalty area, missed all game long, lost a late 1-0 advantage, missed a penalty and finally proceed to lose the cup after they were ahead in penalties...
On May 20 2012 06:34 Sanctimonius wrote: Well, Chelsea finally have the Champions League, so lucky that Arsenal finished 3rd
I do have a question for everyone complaining about Chelsea here - how would you have liked them to play? They aren't as skillful as Bayern, have older players and more players suspended. They played the only way they could have won, and it's Bayern's fault that they didn't tuck away those many, many chances, including that penalty.
They should have realised their inferiority and collectively have performed seppuku like fucking football samurai imo.
On May 20 2012 06:36 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: How.... many......... chances..... can be missed in 1 game? Whole game long Bayern sat on Chelsea's penalty area, missed all game long, lost a late 1-0 advantage, missed a penalty and finally proceed to lose the cup after they were ahead in penalties...
The worst thing were the corners though. They seventeen(ish) corners, and every single one looked exactly the same. Each single one the head of the same Chelsea defender, besides one or two who sailed over the box completely. On top of that, nearly all the free-kicks were the same too. Some creativity could really have helped in that regard.
On May 20 2012 06:36 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: How.... many......... chances..... can be missed in 1 game? Whole game long Bayern sat on Chelsea's penalty area, missed all game long, lost a late 1-0 advantage, missed a penalty and finally proceed to lose the cup after they were ahead in penalties...
i wonder if it is even possible to win the champions league and the EPL anymore, chelsea finished 6th ffs, and the manchester teams were too involved in the EPL to progress in europe
On May 20 2012 06:42 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: It feels that in this season more than Chelsea has won the CL, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich had lost it.
On May 20 2012 06:35 DragoonTT wrote: Offense wins games, Defense wins championships - proven right again.
Bayern wasted all those advantages and opportunities (Robben choking AGAIN, after destroying Bayern's hopes for national championship single-handedly) and comeback king Drogba nails it for Chelsea. You may or may not lie their playstyle, but analysing your opponent and finding the appropriate countermeasures has to be appreciated. Whole thing kinda reminds me of Greece taking the 2004 European Cup.
Where the fuck was chelseas play an appropriate coutermeasure ? They looked completely invisible, while parking their Team Bus right in Front of th Goal, Bayern had too many chances to say Chelsea defended nicely. Robbery completely demolished them and the rest of Chelsea was just plain invisible. Bayern was just either too dumb to score or Abramowitsch just payed Lady Luck a Fortune.
(sry for my bad english I'm pretty agitated right now)
Congrats to Chelsea, they pulled off a Greece 2004.
I guess Chelsea deserved to win a Champions League title after all those attempts, but who would have thought that they win it when they are at their worst in years?
Chelsea definitely rode their luck. It's fucking infuriating as a Spurs fan that they had a miracle comeback against Napoli, and parked the bus for three straight matches here and won out. Kudos to them for being resilient and whatever, but goddamn if they didn't get some help from the soccer gods. It's nice to see guys like Drogba and Lampard finally get the trophy though.
On May 20 2012 06:35 sharkie wrote: Just fire Gomez, he is ****, useless.
Having Gomez on your field is playing with 10 vs 12. He is just plain useless and most overrated player ever.
41 Goals in 52 matches, you mad, bro? Not saying he's the best player ever but come on man.
You do know he has scored 80% of his goals vs lower mid table teams? He has scored ONE goal vs top6 in the Bundesliga.
This. Gomez is a really good striker if he gets fed all those Ribery/Robben crosses against a weak defense, but he totally fell apart against well-organized defenses, at least in national league games. He scored a lot of goals - often more than one in a single game - but those always against weak teams where Bayern wins 4-0 or higher anyway.
Bayern really, really needs a striker with high technical skills and good stamina, helping out in defense and being more skilled all-around. Just waiting for the one, golden pass does not cut it these days, even if you have >70% possession every game.
If I were to big a fail in this finals it would have to be Gomez. Sure Bayern has better strikers than that -.- I don't care if he's done 50 goals in this years CL. Robben was a disappointment too, not because of the missed penalty alone but the whole game he looked way try hard. I would question Hoeness decision to put schweinsteiger on the penalty spot. He was way too distressed (although the penalty wasn't quite that bad), you could see that in Robbens penalty already. I love Olic so sucked to see him fail his penalty -.-
I think Chelsea deserved this if not only for their insane work morale and attitude. Last 3 games you could hardly tell that was Drogba. Cahill was sick the whole way. Everyone pulled their weight...& Terry.
Overall the game was really good: great goals, few posts, and a lot of chances and action.
Oh and the keepers made the penalties really exciting
6th in the League, Newcastle ahead of them, then winning the Champions League. After all the fucking tension spurs went through last season to get 4th, what a waste of time. Fuck this shit.
On May 20 2012 06:36 Mafe wrote: Chelsea may have won the cup, but they have lost a lot of respect.
Why?
They played their hearts out, tirelessly defended and won. What's wrong with that?
Ugh same arguement over and over. Both teams played their heart out, that's taken for granted, it's a god damned CL finals. Bayern put into it skills and was much braver, but they were extremely unlucky. This must be one of the must undeserving title ever.
Can't believe I lived to see this day. After napoli away i thought it was all over. Then 2-0 with 10 men in barcelona. Then going down in the 85th minute in the final. Then a pen shootout against germans. Destiny.
Feel bad for bayern, they played fantastic and probably should have won but it was not their day.
To be honest, I would take Arsenal winning trophies the ugly way any day of the year over trying to win it in style and failing. Congrats to Chelsea for proving everyone wrong. I hope Arsenal can get there someday.
On May 20 2012 06:36 Mafe wrote: Chelsea may have won the cup, but they have lost a lot of respect.
Why?
They played their hearts out, tirelessly defended and won. What's wrong with that?
Ugh same arguement over and over. Both teams played their heart out, that's taken for granted, it's a god damned CL finals. Bayern put into it skills and was much braver, but they were extremely unlucky. This must be one of the must undeserving title ever.
Like Barcelona deserves to win everything because they are better in Football Manager ?
Germany generally has been very unlucky in big international finals the past ten years. But honestly, while watching the finals I felt that none of the two teams deserved the win. (I am neither a Bayern nor Chelsea fan) The finals of the "DFB-Pokal" (Bayern vs. Dortmund) was way more entertaining. MVP vs Squirtle of course was even better
On May 20 2012 06:45 HwangjaeTerran wrote: If I were to big a fail in this finals it would have to be Gomez. Sure Bayern has better strikers than that -.- I don't care if he's done 50 goals in this years CL. Robben was a disappointment too, not because of the missed penalty alone but the whole game he looked way try hard. I would question Hoeness decision to put schweinsteiger on the penalty spot. He was way too distressed (although the penalty wasn't quite that bad), you could see that in Robbens penalty already. I love Olic so sucked to see him fail his penalty -.-
I think Chelsea deserved this if not only for their insane work morale and attitude. Last 3 games you could hardly tell that was Drogba. Cahill was sick the whole way. Everyone pulled their weight...& Terry.
Overall the game was really good: great goals, few posts, and a lot of chances and action.
Oh and the keepers made the penalties really exciting
I blame Bayern coach a lot too, he has subbed Mueller out for vanBuyten.
Why do you sub out your best player vs an injured defender?
On May 20 2012 06:50 Rebs wrote: Gratz Chelsea, it was destiny,
all this talk of unlucky, bad styles etc is unbecoming. This is football.
That's exactly why it isn't unbecoming though. After all, football is to many people all about style, and I definitely think luck sometimes is a big factor. We should talk our hearts out about it, but no one's ever going to be right because it is so subjective
On May 20 2012 06:45 HwangjaeTerran wrote: If I were to big a fail in this finals it would have to be Gomez. Sure Bayern has better strikers than that -.- I don't care if he's done 50 goals in this years CL. Robben was a disappointment too, not because of the missed penalty alone but the whole game he looked way try hard. I would question Hoeness decision to put schweinsteiger on the penalty spot. He was way too distressed (although the penalty wasn't quite that bad), you could see that in Robbens penalty already. I love Olic so sucked to see him fail his penalty -.-
I think Chelsea deserved this if not only for their insane work morale and attitude. Last 3 games you could hardly tell that was Drogba. Cahill was sick the whole way. Everyone pulled their weight...& Terry.
Overall the game was really good: great goals, few posts, and a lot of chances and action.
Oh and the keepers made the penalties really exciting
I blame Bayern coach a lot too, he has subbed Mueller out for vanBuyten.
Why do you sub out your best player vs an injured defender?
To get time. Common procedure in the end-game. Only works, if IT REMAINS TO BE THE END-GAME and is not extended.
lol at all the anti football bullshit. Chelsea doesn't play pretty, but they get the job done. If your team played like chelsea and won you won't be complaining.
On May 20 2012 06:55 Timurid wrote: lol at all the anti football bullshit. Chelsea doesn't play pretty, but they get the job done. If your team played like chelsea and won you won't be complaining.
On May 20 2012 06:45 HwangjaeTerran wrote: If I were to big a fail in this finals it would have to be Gomez. Sure Bayern has better strikers than that -.- I don't care if he's done 50 goals in this years CL. Robben was a disappointment too, not because of the missed penalty alone but the whole game he looked way try hard. I would question Hoeness decision to put schweinsteiger on the penalty spot. He was way too distressed (although the penalty wasn't quite that bad), you could see that in Robbens penalty already. I love Olic so sucked to see him fail his penalty -.-
I think Chelsea deserved this if not only for their insane work morale and attitude. Last 3 games you could hardly tell that was Drogba. Cahill was sick the whole way. Everyone pulled their weight...& Terry.
Overall the game was really good: great goals, few posts, and a lot of chances and action.
Oh and the keepers made the penalties really exciting
I blame Bayern coach a lot too, he has subbed Mueller out for vanBuyten.
Why do you sub out your best player vs an injured defender?
To get time. Common procedure in the end-game. Only works, if IT REMAINS TO BE THE END-GAME and is not extended.
This has never ever worked. I can count tons and tons and tons of important games where the leading team has lost because they decided to play defensively and waste time.
Also why Mueller??? He is their best active and counter-style type of player. He has won best scorer award in the WC2010 just by scoring counter goals.
On May 20 2012 06:36 Mafe wrote: Chelsea may have won the cup, but they have lost a lot of respect.
Why?
They played their hearts out, tirelessly defended and won. What's wrong with that?
As stated by others, but: Bayern played with their hearts out, tirelessly attacked and lost.
See, Bayern had to replace (just like Chelsea) 3 defensive starters. Why didn't Chelsea try to exploit this? They were just hoping for a lucky punch (saying they tried to counterattack would even be too much) or penalties. Would you rather see 2 teams like Chelsea or 2 like Bayern play each other? Didn't Abramovid fire coaches for not playing attarctive enough.
Well see you again after 5 years of financial fair play rules. Or rather, we won't.
(Disclaimer: I'm german, but I would not call myself a Bayern fan)
On May 20 2012 06:54 Perscienter wrote: Can't they say, that only Drogba receives the title and not Chelsea?
On May 20 2012 06:51 sharkie wrote:
On May 20 2012 06:45 HwangjaeTerran wrote: If I were to big a fail in this finals it would have to be Gomez. Sure Bayern has better strikers than that -.- I don't care if he's done 50 goals in this years CL. Robben was a disappointment too, not because of the missed penalty alone but the whole game he looked way try hard. I would question Hoeness decision to put schweinsteiger on the penalty spot. He was way too distressed (although the penalty wasn't quite that bad), you could see that in Robbens penalty already. I love Olic so sucked to see him fail his penalty -.-
I think Chelsea deserved this if not only for their insane work morale and attitude. Last 3 games you could hardly tell that was Drogba. Cahill was sick the whole way. Everyone pulled their weight...& Terry.
Overall the game was really good: great goals, few posts, and a lot of chances and action.
Oh and the keepers made the penalties really exciting
I blame Bayern coach a lot too, he has subbed Mueller out for vanBuyten.
Why do you sub out your best player vs an injured defender?
To get time. Common procedure in the end-game. Only works, if IT REMAINS TO BE THE END-GAME and is not extended.
This has never ever worked. I can count tons and tons and tons of important games where the leading team has lost because they decided to play defensively and waste time.
Also why Mueller??? He is their best active and counter-style type of player. He has won best scorer award in the WC2010 just by scoring counter goals.
I don't know, how prudent it was to introduce another defender.
wow this was the most stupid game i have ever seen
chelsea should never have won that
they just sat on their asses until the 85th minute and then when they were down 0-1 they got lucky with a corner
i mean i'm certainly not unhappy that bayern lost since they are by far my least favourite team but that stupid style chelsea is playing is just not good for football in general
Just because you can string passes together doesn't mean you deserve to win, putting the ball in the back of the net does.
It just so happens Chelsea put the ball in the back of the net more than Bayern, should they have won? Sure. But Chelsea did everything they could to push their percentage of winning more and more in their favour.
Don't get mad at Chelsea, if they've played "anti-football" then apparantly it's more effective than playing football, but I mean who really plays to win these days?
On May 20 2012 07:00 sVnteen wrote: wow this was the most stupid game i have ever seen
chelsea should never have won that
they just sat on their asses until the 85th minute and then when they were down 0-1 they got lucky with a corner
i mean i'm certainly not unhappy that bayern lost since they are by far my least favourite team but that stupid style chelsea is playing is just not good for football in general
Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
On May 20 2012 07:00 sVnteen wrote: wow this was the most stupid game i have ever seen
chelsea should never have won that
they just sat on their asses until the 85th minute and then when they were down 0-1 they got lucky with a corner
i mean i'm certainly not unhappy that bayern lost since they are by far my least favourite team but that stupid style chelsea is playing is just not good for football in general
Shows how good defensive football is.
And again, it wasn't only that Chelsea played freakin defensiv, they played bad too, Bayern had so many chances to get that thing behind the Line, but they just got Mario Gomez and not Lady Luck on their side.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
On May 20 2012 07:00 sVnteen wrote: wow this was the most stupid game i have ever seen
chelsea should never have won that
they just sat on their asses until the 85th minute and then when they were down 0-1 they got lucky with a corner
i mean i'm certainly not unhappy that bayern lost since they are by far my least favourite team but that stupid style chelsea is playing is just not good for football in general
Shows how good defensive football is.
You guys have very little understanding of luck and probability. If a team or a style of football has a low chance of winning (that is, a style that relies on the random part of football) then it is a bad style regardless of whether it manages to win one, two or ten trophies. And by low chance I'm saying that if this finals were played ten times, 8 out of 10 would have been won by Bayern.
But yeah, it is evident that what matters at the end of the day is that the ball gets in the net, how is that even an argument when talking about who deserves what.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
On May 20 2012 07:00 sVnteen wrote: wow this was the most stupid game i have ever seen
chelsea should never have won that
they just sat on their asses until the 85th minute and then when they were down 0-1 they got lucky with a corner
i mean i'm certainly not unhappy that bayern lost since they are by far my least favourite team but that stupid style chelsea is playing is just not good for football in general
Shows how good defensive football is.
And again, it wasn't only that Chelsea played freakin defensiv, they played bad too, Bayern had so many chances to get that thing behind the Line, but they just got Mario Gomez and not Lady Luck on their side.
Well, Bayern should of took advantage and won the game!
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it.
Football isn't about pleasing the fans, for some reason since Barca started playing this stupid football everyone feels that unless you're making 8000 passes a game you're doing it wrong, unless you're scoring 5 goals a game and doing tricks that please the crowd, you're doing it wrong. What happened to the raw appreciation of the tactics, the skill, the mental battle, the way a manager coaches his players and the discipline required? Just because they didn't play like Barca doesn't mean it's bad football, ask any analytical person, they will say that was a masterpiece of footballing genius, just because it doesn't please drunk home fan #3431 doesn't mean it's bad football.
Also as an extra, look at Arsenal, they play beautiful football, shiiiiit where's their trophies? Oh right, the flashy fancy football doesn't always win trophies, but it's ok because it pleases the fans we'll give them some sort of "trying to emulate Barcalona but failed but at least the spectators are pleased" medal to go in their trophy case.
I was rooting for Bayern München since im ½ german but well congratulations to Chelsea! Considering bayern was ahead 6min before final time have had 15+ corners with only 1 of them being fair and the rest crappy, Chelsea go haves 1 2min before time and scores it's just not good. In overtime
Robben misses the penalty and during the penalty shootout chelsea turned most effective. It didn't look nice 80min of the game especially with all the shooting blocks but whoever scores most goals wins. It was not pretty i think. Anywho Bayern München will come back and i can't wait for next season already!
Please remind that football is hard and unfair quite often, as dominating and scoring are 2 different things. Scoring is easy and hard to do at the same time...
Also, this final was played in Munich, so Bayern was a clear favourite and i see no reason for Chelsea for suddenly try to outplay their opponents. They felt pretty comfortable defending against Barcelona, the best team in terms of "domination" in Europe, why would they change everything right now?
Bayern had everything in their hands when leading 1/0 with 5 minutes playing, blame them for not being able to close it out.
I'm not a chelsea fan by any means, but it feels like somehow luck has decided to get back to them after so many close matches they've lost in the past CL. It was about time for their old players. Bayern will get the chance to win it again.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
I'm German. Look at my post history in this thread. Stop making stupid assumption.
Edit: Someone else said they prefered Pokalfinale over this. No - this game was way better. Goals are nice - but too many (stupid) goals are also bad.
lol at all the butt hurt people complaining about justness and not deserving it. STFU. This is football, I wonder if the vast majority of you could even play at Sunday league level. Slandering your opinion round as if you have just been morally wronged.
On May 20 2012 06:50 Rebs wrote: Gratz Chelsea, it was destiny,
all this talk of unlucky, bad styles etc is unbecoming. This is football.
Since when is Luck=Football ?
Its not, its a part of football. You have to show up and do the business. If your opponent did and you didnt why are you blaming the team that didnt mess up ?
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it. .
except for MVP. Never seen him winning a final, playing worse than his opponent. Oh still having goosebumps from today lmao
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it.
Football isn't about pleasing the fans, for some reason since Barca started playing this stupid football everyone feels that unless you're making 8000 passes a game you're doing it wrong, unless you're scoring 5 goals a game and doing tricks that please the crowd, you're doing it wrong. What happened to the raw appreciation of the tactics, the skill, the mental battle, the way a manager coaches his players and the discipline required? Just because they didn't play like Barca doesn't mean it's bad football, ask any analytical person, they will say that was a masterpiece of footballing genius, just because it doesn't please drunk home fan #3431 doesn't mean it's bad football.
It wasn't only that they didn't play offensive, they played BAD. I mean really bad, if you defend like that the other Team shouldn't have one chance after the other. They were completely dominated and just lucked out.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
I'm German. Look at my post history in this thread. Stop making stupid assumption.
I'm sorry I wasn't aware a lot suddenly became every fan
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it.
Football isn't about pleasing the fans, for some reason since Barca started playing this stupid football everyone feels that unless you're making 8000 passes a game you're doing it wrong, unless you're scoring 5 goals a game and doing tricks that please the crowd, you're doing it wrong. What happened to the raw appreciation of the tactics, the skill, the mental battle, the way a manager coaches his players and the discipline required? Just because they didn't play like Barca doesn't mean it's bad football, ask any analytical person, they will say that was a masterpiece of footballing genius, just because it doesn't please drunk home fan #3431 doesn't mean it's bad football.
It wasn't only that they didn't play offensive, they played BAD. I mean really bad, if you defend like that the other Team shouldn't have one chance after the other. They were completely dominated and just lucked out.
And Bayern played worse with not being able to use their chances. Luck? The Cech's save vs Robben early in the first half. After that? Just fail after fail after fail from Bayern. Fumbling around in the penalty area will not lead to scoring goals. Ever.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
I'm German. Look at my post history in this thread. Stop making stupid assumption.
I'm sorry I wasn't aware a lot suddenly became every fan
unless I've mistaken the English language?
Patterns are clearly defined in the English language. And you mentioned patterns. And seeing patterns emerging is a stupid assumption I didnt mention stupid obversations.
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it. .
except for MVP. Never seen him winning a final, playing worse than his opponent. Oh still having goosebumps from today lmao
The last game shouldn't of gone the way it did, but the sick flank capitalised on the mistake and won him the game, I'm not going to say it was luck because if there's one thing I learned from MVP is he doesn't get lucky, those units were in that position for a reason should a circumstance arrive and it did and he capitalised. Chelsea threw bodies on the line and waited for the mistake, they did ride Bayern's mistakes but when the chance came they never looked back.
Legitimate question for this people calling anti football
If a team has 21 shots on target but scores none against a team who has 3 on target and 3 goals, who's played the better game?
On May 20 2012 07:18 Salteador Neo wrote: Chelsea are such a lucky bunch with their goals at the last minute lol. Whenever another team does it we call it "making a chelsea" here.
Usually late goals are associated with manchester united
On May 20 2012 07:01 Poocannon wrote: Think back to the Games of Bayern vs Real Madrid, that was an offensive Firework, these Games were so incredibly much fun to watch, and than that, one Team running on against their Bad Luck. Just so sad to watch.
You're German, a lot of the angry fans in this thread are also German.
Do I see a pattern emerging?
why angry?
not every german is a fan of bayern munich in fact most germans don't like them at all (like me for example) but the way chelsea played and how lucky they got... it's just pretty silly that they won
you can't possibly that bayern didn't play much better than chelsea this game
Of course they did, Barcalona plays better football than 99% of the world, they aren't immortal though, the better team doesn't always win. Same is true for Starcraft, in the recent GSL finals the winner shouldn't of won, he didn't play better but shit a lot of external factors lined up and contributed to it.
Football isn't about pleasing the fans, for some reason since Barca started playing this stupid football everyone feels that unless you're making 8000 passes a game you're doing it wrong, unless you're scoring 5 goals a game and doing tricks that please the crowd, you're doing it wrong. What happened to the raw appreciation of the tactics, the skill, the mental battle, the way a manager coaches his players and the discipline required? Just because they didn't play like Barca doesn't mean it's bad football, ask any analytical person, they will say that was a masterpiece of footballing genius, just because it doesn't please drunk home fan #3431 doesn't mean it's bad football.
It wasn't only that they didn't play offensive, they played BAD. I mean really bad, if you defend like that the other Team shouldn't have one chance after the other. They were completely dominated and just lucked out.
You were obviously watching the game through your munich tinted glasses. Chelsea didnt play offensively but defensively they played great. Thought Luiz, Cahill and esp Ashley Cole did great.
On May 20 2012 07:18 Salteador Neo wrote: Chelsea are such a lucky bunch with their goals at the last minute lol. Whenever another team does it we call it "making a chelsea" here.
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.
On May 20 2012 07:18 Salteador Neo wrote: Chelsea are such a lucky bunch with their goals at the last minute lol. Whenever another team does it we call it "making a chelsea" here.
You mean Man U?
Nope we pretty much only watch english teams in the CL, not the Premier games. In the CL Chelsea are easily the late goals team as far as I remember.
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.
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.
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.
On May 20 2012 07:26 Pandemona wrote: Ashley Cole surely cemented himself as the WORLDS best LB? I mean he was the best player on the pitch for me! Amazing
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.
go watch arsenal pls
But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right?
oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense.
maybe playing attractively doesn't win games?
also to the ^ German guy, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but the 2 displays don't compare.
Ashley Cole is known for his attacking moves and ability to get up the pitch, the past 3 games he has displayed an unparalled defensive display for someone of his position.
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.
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?
Additionally, the human element? We make mistakes, we are not perfect entities. We are human and we can't act in robotic ways.
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.
go watch arsenal pls
But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right?
oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
go watch arsenal pls
But Arsenal play like Barcalona therefore they must be like the 2nd best team is Europe because passes = the better team right?
oh wait they have a dusty trophy cabinet, that doesn't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 07:22 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.
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 07:21 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 07:22 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 07:22 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.
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 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
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 07:22 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?
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.
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?
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 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.
chelsea played REALLY well today, or at least played brilliantly devensively they totally deserve to win the title, though there was an incredible amount of luck involved: messi, robben penalty...you cant always count ob things like these to happen. Chelsea did what they had to do to win. but dont expect them to pull the same miracles next year
bayern played better football, but that doesnt win games.
I rellay feel bad for schweinsteiger.... and when heynckes substituded van buyten for muller...I was like..omg why? rarely ends well
robben most likely will never shoot penaltys again while playing for bayern....he lost the cl and arguably the bundesliga
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?
Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote: [quote] 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?
Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
At least someone understands how football works. Thank you.
On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote: [quote] 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?
Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
Weve been through this and has already been gone over, this is false. And if anything is a matter of perspective and an apology for teams who choose to play this supposed conventional defense. I have no problem with how the games play out. I may not be entertained by it but as has been reiterated time and time again that there are many ways to play and if one of them involves a bit of luck here and there so be it. Winning is winning.
That having been said this nonsense about teams being good in posession translating to defensive possession based play is rubbish. If it were the case those teams would never cross the halfway line, yet they have often all but 2 fullbacks sweeping at the half. So no its not defensive football. It requires an increasingly higher level of skill based on the way teams are reacting to it and is even higher risk seeing as you offer the opponent the length and breadth of your side of the pitch when you lose possession I dont see how that can not be attacking football but whatever, everyone who supports a team thinks they are the protagonist and so they should. Couldnt care less to argue this any further.
If I were forced to pick a team today that came out to win rather than not to lose Id would be Bayern and that is what generally upsets people the most. But you need to be pragmatic and understand that Chelsea as a team played within their means and got the results. All that is in order is a congratulation.
On May 20 2012 08:03 DragoonTT wrote: Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
I do not agree with this analysis at all. They did not excell at converting. A team that is good at converting chances plays similar hard defense as Chelsea but then launches quick counterattacks to punish the forward defense by achieving superior numbers in the opponent's half and thus creating fewer but bigger chances than their opponents. Chelsea did not do that. They did not have a single good attack or counterattack throughout the entire game.
If anything, it was the individual class by Drogba, but do not say that they had a good tactic or played a game winning strategy that countered the ball posession style. That claim is ridiculous. It was something like 20-1 corners and Chelsea hit their one, that is not a strategy that will win many games. I would call their win stupid luck, not much else, and I do not think that is a biased point of view.
On May 20 2012 08:03 DragoonTT wrote: Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
I do not agree with this analysis at all. They did not excell at converting. A team that is good at converting chances plays similar hard defense as Chelsea but then launches quick counterattacks. Chelsea did not do that. They did not have a single good attack throughout the entire game.
If anything, it was the individual class by Drogba, but do not say that they had a good tactic or played a game winning strategy that countered the ball posession style. That claim is ridiculous. It was something like 20-1 corners and Chelsea hit their one, that is not a strategy that will win many games. I would call their win stupid luck, not much else, and I do not think that is a biased point of view.
Bayern played horrible too. The only difference is that chelsea let them have the ball.
On May 20 2012 08:03 DragoonTT wrote: Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
I do not agree with this analysis at all. They did not excell at converting. A team that is good at converting chances plays similar hard defense as Chelsea but then launches quick counterattacks. Chelsea did not do that. They did not have a single good attack throughout the entire game.
If anything, it was the individual class by Drogba, but do not say that they had a good tactic or played a game winning strategy that countered the ball posession style. That claim is ridiculous. It was something like 20-1 corners and Chelsea hit their one, that is not a strategy that will win many games. I would call their win stupid luck, not much else, and I do not think that is a biased point of view.
Well I think there's the problem of Ramires and Meireles being suspended, so the quickness and the passing just weren't there. Chelsea did do that against Barcelona - successfully. Yes, there's a fair share of luck involved, no doubt, but people claiming that Chelsea are killing football are just hysterical. And after all, it's not luck if you miss a penalty and no less than 3 sitters in 120 minutes. Bayern simply bottled it.
On May 20 2012 08:03 DragoonTT wrote: Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
I do not agree with this analysis at all. They did not excell at converting. A team that is good at converting chances plays similar hard defense as Chelsea but then launches quick counterattacks. Chelsea did not do that. They did not have a single good attack throughout the entire game.
If anything, it was the individual class by Drogba, but do not say that they had a good tactic or played a game winning strategy that countered the ball posession style. That claim is ridiculous. It was something like 20-1 corners and Chelsea hit their one, that is not a strategy that will win many games. I would call their win stupid luck, not much else, and I do not think that is a biased point of view.
Well I think there's the problem of Ramires and Meireles being suspended, so the quickness and the passing just weren't there. Chelsea did do that against Barcelona - successfully. Yes, there's a fair share of luck involved, no doubt, but people claiming that Chelsea are killing football are just hysterical. And after all, it's not luck if you miss a penalty and no less than 3 sitters in 120 minutes. Bayern simply bottled it.
I do not disagree with Bayern botching it by missing a million chances. I just disagree with the claim that Chelsea had a good strategy for this game.
On May 20 2012 08:24 Sated wrote: Chelsea didn't deserve to win this game, but it's hilarious that they did. That encompasses all my thoughts on this game.
EDIT:
Oh, and a goalkeeper taking a penalty = awesome.
Heynckes should have brought substitute keeper Butt into the game, he scored 3 penalties in europe during his career, all against Buffon (juventus). ^^
On May 20 2012 08:03 DragoonTT wrote: Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
I do not agree with this analysis at all. They did not excell at converting. A team that is good at converting chances plays similar hard defense as Chelsea but then launches quick counterattacks. Chelsea did not do that. They did not have a single good attack throughout the entire game.
If anything, it was the individual class by Drogba, but do not say that they had a good tactic or played a game winning strategy that countered the ball posession style. That claim is ridiculous. It was something like 20-1 corners and Chelsea hit their one, that is not a strategy that will win many games. I would call their win stupid luck, not much else, and I do not think that is a biased point of view.
Well I think there's the problem of Ramires and Meireles being suspended, so the quickness and the passing just weren't there. Chelsea did do that against Barcelona - successfully. Yes, there's a fair share of luck involved, no doubt, but people claiming that Chelsea are killing football are just hysterical. And after all, it's not luck if you miss a penalty and no less than 3 sitters in 120 minutes. Bayern simply bottled it.
I do not disagree with Bayern botching it by missing a million chances. I just disagree with the claim that Chelsea had a good strategy for this game.
Is there a good strategy for such an occasion? Your (arguably) best counter-attacking midfielder (Ramires) is suspended, Malouda came off injured against Blackburn a few days ago, Meireles is also suspended, the defence is looking shaky as fuck - what do you do?
I think I'd do the same thing (even with retrospect, etc.) and just park the bus and hope. Sometimes it works, like tonight. Other times, like WC final, it doesn't.
Part of the disappointment with the way Chelsea won is that they showed such a different style under AVB that was invigorating for EPL. True, they had Cahill-Luiz, which may have been catastrophic if they really went for it. But having watched Chelsea ride a lot of luck in the goal scoring department is quite frustrating. Sometimes you think, "oh well they did a great job defending and deserve a goal for the effort." But Chelsea has a number of high quality players that know how to play attacking football. Sure they won, but chose the lowest common denominator as a tactic: defending deep. Bayern was able to defend just as well as Chelsea, preventing the opposing wingers from keeping possession and not letting Drogba turn or lay it off. Bayern also happened to enforce an offensive identity on the game that consistently works. Chelsea decided to let athleticism and proper marking be their way. I don't know if Di Matteo really felt this was the best course of action or rather the easiest to implement, which is part of the disappointment.
This is the greatest night of my chelsea supporting life without a SHADOW of a doubt. The culmination of the MOST IMPROBABLE RUN in any championship EVER. It was a right out of a movie...fucking insane...purely insane.
ANY football fan in the WORLD should be able to imagine what it feels like for us CHelsea fans...you know all of us have had times when we just thought the football gods were smiling on us,...and we gutted out an improbable victory.
On May 20 2012 09:21 sharkeyanti wrote: Part of the disappointment with the way Chelsea won is that they showed such a different style under AVB that was invigorating for EPL. True, they had Cahill-Luiz, which may have been catastrophic if they really went for it. But having watched Chelsea ride a lot of luck in the goal scoring department is quite frustrating. Sometimes you think, "oh well they did a great job defending and deserve a goal for the effort." But Chelsea has a number of high quality players that know how to play attacking football. Sure they won, but chose the lowest common denominator as a tactic: defending deep. Bayern was able to defend just as well as Chelsea, preventing the opposing wingers from keeping possession and not letting Drogba turn or lay it off. Bayern also happened to enforce an offensive identity on the game that consistently works. Chelsea decided to let athleticism and proper marking be their way. I don't know if Di Matteo really felt this was the best course of action or rather the easiest to implement, which is part of the disappointment.
AVB played invigorating football for the EPL
and lost the league
sounds like Arsenal, I think Chelsea shouldn't become Arsenal.
On May 20 2012 09:21 sharkeyanti wrote: Part of the disappointment with the way Chelsea won is that they showed such a different style under AVB that was invigorating for EPL. True, they had Cahill-Luiz, which may have been catastrophic if they really went for it. But having watched Chelsea ride a lot of luck in the goal scoring department is quite frustrating. Sometimes you think, "oh well they did a great job defending and deserve a goal for the effort." But Chelsea has a number of high quality players that know how to play attacking football. Sure they won, but chose the lowest common denominator as a tactic: defending deep. Bayern was able to defend just as well as Chelsea, preventing the opposing wingers from keeping possession and not letting Drogba turn or lay it off. Bayern also happened to enforce an offensive identity on the game that consistently works. Chelsea decided to let athleticism and proper marking be their way. I don't know if Di Matteo really felt this was the best course of action or rather the easiest to implement, which is part of the disappointment.
AVB played invigorating football for the EPL
and lost the league
sounds like Arsenal, I think Chelsea shouldn't become Arsenal.
The reason why AVB failed is that Chelsea's backline doesnt know how to play a high line like Arsenal and other attacking sides. They got destroyed by that, so what does chelsea do? They go back to what they know and finally won the UEFA. The reason why arsenal are in the shit not because of our playstyle. We don't buy quality players and we invest into too much youth instead of getting experiance players instead.
well that was soooo boring, i wish they brought back the golden goal. So does this mean there is gonna be 5 english teams in next uefa champions league?
On May 20 2012 09:21 sharkeyanti wrote: Part of the disappointment with the way Chelsea won is that they showed such a different style under AVB that was invigorating for EPL. True, they had Cahill-Luiz, which may have been catastrophic if they really went for it. But having watched Chelsea ride a lot of luck in the goal scoring department is quite frustrating. Sometimes you think, "oh well they did a great job defending and deserve a goal for the effort." But Chelsea has a number of high quality players that know how to play attacking football. Sure they won, but chose the lowest common denominator as a tactic: defending deep. Bayern was able to defend just as well as Chelsea, preventing the opposing wingers from keeping possession and not letting Drogba turn or lay it off. Bayern also happened to enforce an offensive identity on the game that consistently works. Chelsea decided to let athleticism and proper marking be their way. I don't know if Di Matteo really felt this was the best course of action or rather the easiest to implement, which is part of the disappointment.
AVB played invigorating football for the EPL
and lost the league
sounds like Arsenal, I think Chelsea shouldn't become Arsenal.
I didn't intend "invigorating" to be synonymous with the way Arsenal/Barcelona play. It was nice to see an EPL use a defensive tactic that relies on pressing the ball and winning it up high. Chelsea has the players to do that, but much of the old guard just couldn't adapt. Mata,Torres, Drogba, Romeu, Cole, Bosingwa, Luiz, Ramires, Malouda, and Sturridge are all great athletes who have a lot of skill. AVB could have done a great job there if given time. He made that very clear upon his entrance, during the season, and upon his exit. Just because Di Matteo won UCL this year doesn't mean AVB was an idiot, he was in the midst of changing a very entrenched style that Mourinho used in the bigger games. Given the time frame, Di Matteo did the right thing no doubt.
On May 20 2012 09:21 sharkeyanti wrote: Part of the disappointment with the way Chelsea won is that they showed such a different style under AVB that was invigorating for EPL. True, they had Cahill-Luiz, which may have been catastrophic if they really went for it. But having watched Chelsea ride a lot of luck in the goal scoring department is quite frustrating. Sometimes you think, "oh well they did a great job defending and deserve a goal for the effort." But Chelsea has a number of high quality players that know how to play attacking football. Sure they won, but chose the lowest common denominator as a tactic: defending deep. Bayern was able to defend just as well as Chelsea, preventing the opposing wingers from keeping possession and not letting Drogba turn or lay it off. Bayern also happened to enforce an offensive identity on the game that consistently works. Chelsea decided to let athleticism and proper marking be their way. I don't know if Di Matteo really felt this was the best course of action or rather the easiest to implement, which is part of the disappointment.
AVB played invigorating football for the EPL
and lost the league
sounds like Arsenal, I think Chelsea shouldn't become Arsenal.
The reason why AVB failed is that Chelsea's backline doesnt know how to play a high line like Arsenal and other attacking sides. They got destroyed by that, so what does chelsea do? They go back to what they know and finally won the UEFA. The reason why arsenal are in the shit not because of our playstyle. We don't buy quality players and we invest into too much youth instead of getting experiance players instead.
Let's face it, the only reason AVB didn't work for Chelsea is because the players didn't like the way he managed. They didn't perform for him, at all, like they didn't previous times when capable managers came by and fell victim to player-power. Those players are largely the product of a team created by Mou, and they only want to play a single way. Di Matteo played the hand he was dealt because he knew he wouldn't be able to win the match any other way - should he use tactics he knew wouldn't work? Even then they were incredibly lucky throughout the game and a more clinical opponent would have knocked 4/5 past them tonight.
I'm expecting Di Matteo to get the job, it's the least he deserves. But what will he do with the team now? Looking forward to seeing them under a real new era where the old guard has to be phased out.
sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread. But I just came home and I feel sorry for Bayern. The game looked very much like they deserved to win and I feel like they did (I am biased of course). But don't forget the classic sports saying defense wins championships! And Chelsea did very well. You all saw the holes of Munichs defense, you could see it the whole season...
On May 20 2012 07:31 greggy wrote: [quote] 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?
Ever since Barcelona (and with national teams, Spain) began winning based on tiki-taka - lots of passing and ball possession - people have begun to think that beautiful football can only consist of being the lone team to have the ball, and to make as many passes as possible. No one realizes that tiki-taka is, in fact, a defensive tactic at heart, as it aims to provide as few opportunities as possible to the opponent, and to create overwhelming numbers in case of loss of possession. So by now, "conventional" defensive play against teams with high possession/highly skilled (midfield) players is looked down on, as it doesn't provide the same sense of control over the game that ball possession seems to do.
True, Chelsea didn't have a lot of scoring opportunities (both against Barca and Bayern), but they excelled at converting. But Bayern didn't have a lot of good opportunities either, mostly being blocked or offside, and wasting the few shots they managed to aim at the goal. From a defender's point of view, Chelsea did an outstanding job, especially regarding the raw techinal skill the Bayern wingers provide.
Reactions to the game, both by german fans and media, are pretty disgusting, claiming oh how superbly Bayern played and how catastrophic Chelsea winning is supposed to be for football, instead of appreciating solid defensive football and teamplay - something Bayern sorely lacks, along tactical variance. Bayern winning would have been great for german football in regard to the UEFA five-year ratings, but I can only applaud Chelsea on their victory.
quoting for truth!
First reaction after the 90 minutes was that I felt betrayed. Chelsea defended amazingly. But me and my friends all considered that Bayern wasn't able to create real chances and Chelsea defended very well. Everyone knows that Bayern doesn't have a solid defensive play (else they would not have lost the Bundesliga and the DFB-Pokal).
After all it was not an ugly game (the semis wasn't neither), Chelsea just had a way better efficiency scoring...
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
when bayern was racking up corners i kept saying 'if chelsea get a single corner drogba will score'. when that actually happened i was literally on the floor laughing, also called robben missing the penalty, but seeing how hes robben and hes dutch i guess that was an easy call. i cant understand why they let him take the penalty, he didnt hit a straight ball all game, and his body language going to the penalty already told everyone he will miss it...
serves heynckes right for bringing van buyten for mueller, what an utterly retarded substitution, and then the very thing van buyten was brought on to prevent happens, haha
i was rooting more for bayern, dont like either side really, but i would have liked to see them win at home. the way it went i was too entertained to care who won though, also i feel good for drogba, he deserved that. everytime he hits the ball it seems like its twice as powerful as a normal human can hit it, neuer even had that header but couldnt hold it cuz it was just too powerful...
props to chelsea for saving a ruined season, and much schadenfreude towards bayern for coming in second in every single competition this year
Bayern lacked composure in front of the goal and their profligacy made them lose the game. Chelsea played well defensively, but one obviously cannot plan for "efficiency" like the one shown in their last 3 games. Drogba was awesome, and he deserved the title the most out of all the players on the pitch yesterday.
Chelsea is the worst CL winner of all times. The didn't even play good in defence they were just lucky! But as a german it's always nice to see Bayern fail!
I just hope I will never see two Chelsea alike teams go at each other at a high level CL match. If that is the future of football, I'll be a sad panda.
On May 20 2012 17:34 hewley wrote: I just hope I will never see two Chelsea alike teams go at each other at a high level CL match. If that is the future of football, I'll be a sad panda.
No way is it the future of football but having a team that knows how to defend isn't a bad thing. Everyone in Chelsea can defend pretty well. Some clubs could do with a little more defense. Also, at least Chelsea give other teams possession. Personally I find 65:35% possession matches boring as hell. In most matches against balanced teams the possession is like 50:50 with Chelsea.
Anyway HOW ABOUT CECH? And Drogba!!! And Cole!!!! Also Lampard put in a great defensive shift...and all of them were important in the penalties!!! You have to admit...Cech dived the right way for EVERY penalty. And even got hands on 2 of the pens that went in. That was pretty crazy.
On May 20 2012 17:34 hewley wrote: I just hope I will never see two Chelsea alike teams go at each other at a high level CL match. If that is the future of football, I'll be a sad panda.
No way is it the future of football but having a team that knows how to defend isn't a bad thing. Everyone in Chelsea can defend pretty well. Some clubs could do with a little more defense. Also, at least Chelsea give other teams possession. Personally I find 65:35% possession matches boring as hell. In most matches against balanced teams the possession is like 50:50 with Chelsea.
Anyway HOW ABOUT CECH? And Drogba!!! And Cole!!!! Also Lampard put in a great defensive shift...and all of them were important in the penalties!!! You have to admit...Cech dived the right way for EVERY penalty. And even got hands on 2 of the pens that went in. That was pretty crazy.
Agreed. Cech was CRAZY good at penalties, holy shit. I don't watch EPL too much so whenever I see Cech play, I'm just always amazed.
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
They weren't outclassed in the Home game vs Napoli.
They pulled a Greece 2004, and perfectly. Good Job for Chelsea.
It's interesting that Chelsea never lost in the CL under Di Matteo!
But seriously if you re-watch our games in this champions league run...almost all of the teams had a sub par shooting night against us. It's either a) because we were hilariously lucky, the football gods shined on us and we got what karma owed us...OR b) because chelsea are such good pressuring defenders in the final third, attackers get freaked out that they will get tackled and snatch their shots.
I actually think it's more a than b but still b plays a part. Look at Barcelona and Bayern, napoli also scuffed a lot of shots in the second leg, benfica had a torrid time in front of goal. Our guys on the other hand were insanely clinical to the point of it being a joke. Ramires v Barcelona at the camp nou was like, the perfect embodiment of clinical.
I have to also admit, with a wry smile, that I honestly did not give up all the way through that match. Even when we went down in the 82nd minute I just knew we would have something to offer :D. And even when we went down in the first penalty I kinda still thought it was our night..
On May 20 2012 18:30 mevshero wrote: worst finals ever. seriously
if this is the future of football....
It's ok defending is the future of football, much more efficent than how the germans play don't you think?
In other news after we won I ran outside and started shouting, there much of been 8 other voices from different directions and distances around me also shouting outside, I wonder if Starcraft will ever get that big.
yeah it's nice to watch a team standing around the own goal for 120 minutes, getting lucky one time and win the match. a really really sad day for football.
Yeah I ran out and started shouting in the street and some random guy came and picked me up and a bunch of other people were shouting for joy even though I was in oxford after a wedding :D
On May 20 2012 18:34 mevshero wrote: yeah it's nice to watch a team standing around the own goal for 120 minutes, getting lucky one time and win the match. a really really sad day for football.
It wasn't really that bad. In the second half chelsea managed to get their chances and in the extra time I think chelsea was better than bayern.
Overall yes, bayern was the better team and went for the win all game, but it is unfair or just some degree of bias to say that chelsea only defended for 120 minutes.
On May 20 2012 18:34 mevshero wrote: yeah it's nice to watch a team standing around the own goal for 120 minutes, getting lucky one time and win the match. a really really sad day for football.
It wasn't really that bad. In the second half chelsea managed to get their chances and in the extra time I think chelsea was better than bayern.
Overall yes, bayern was the better team and went for the win all game, but it is unfair or just some degree of bias to say that chelsea only defended for 120 minutes.
People don't seem to appreciate that when Chelsea got the ball and looked to make a counter attack just how good we were on the ball, playing the ball out from the back with fluency, very rarely did lose the ball when we got it and started our passing.
So annoying the people crying about the result. Firstly what do you think it achieves? Chelsea are gonna see your posts and think "oh no they right, we give trophy to Bayern now, duhhhhhh". How was it any way underserved? A penalty was correctly given and promptly missed, Chelsea didn't get any dubious goals, Bayern didn't outscore Chelsea.
On May 20 2012 18:43 sc4k wrote: Yeah I ran out and started shouting in the street and some random guy came and picked me up and a bunch of other people were shouting for joy even though I was in oxford after a wedding :D
haha congratz. I know what it feels like to win something extraordinary and in completely unexpected circumstances. I do feel a bit bitter about the result, but I'm not one to say Bayern deserved it more (because they didn't).
On May 20 2012 18:58 Surrealistic wrote: So annoying the people crying about the result. Firstly what do you think it achieves? Chelsea are gonna see your posts and think "oh no they right, we give trophy to Bayern now, duhhhhhh". How was it any way underserved? A penalty was correctly given and promptly missed, Chelsea didn't get any dubious goals, Bayern didn't outscore Chelsea.
Sometimes its hard to just blame yourself. They never took their chances, and when it cost them they start saying 'football lost' and 'undeserved' and 'worst ever'. If you look at how Chelsea got to the final, against all odds. Then beating the germans on their own turf, how can you say they don't deserve it?
I'm a chelsea fan though so i'm not bitter. and biased
"Football lost", dumbest argument ever.
Fun stat:
This was the 100th Champions League match for Chelsea since Roman Abramovich assumed ownership of the club in June 2003. Since then, no other team has played more than 91 Champions League matches and only one team has won more points than Chelsea's 180 (Barcelona with 190 points from 91 matches).
It was way more undeserving when chelsea won vs Benfica or Barcelona that this final that they actually played better than the other team during the Extra Time, and at spaces during the game.
Congrats to Chelsea.
Football always win unless the games are decided by poor refereeing skills.
Well, I just didn't find the way Chelsea played in the CL appealing. Of course, if it is a winning method, you have to stick to it. On the other hand, I like the way they play in the Premier League and the league itself in general. To those who appreciate defending (I do too): What happens if two teams play each other who have the same mindset (playing safe, good tactical play, defending, etc.)? I am interested.
Can I just remind everyone that Chelsea scored in every Champions League game they played this season. EVERY GAME. Barcelona couldn't do it. Bayern couldn't do it. Real could, but then again they had a joke group and joke play-off opponents.
On May 20 2012 19:33 hewley wrote: Well, I just didn't find the way Chelsea played in the CL appealing. Of course, if it is a winning method, you have to stick to it. On the other hand, I like the way they play in the Premier League and the league itself in general. To those who appreciate defending (I do too): What happens if two teams play each other who have the same mindset (playing safe, good tactical play, defending, etc.)? I am interested.
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
They weren't outclassed in the Home game vs Napoli.
They pulled a Greece 2004, and perfectly. Good Job for Chelsea.
It's interesting that Chelsea never lost in the CL under Di Matteo!
Exactly how I felt watching the finals.... With both Real and Barcelona out, the finals didn't have the real feel to it, as they're clearly 2 of the 3 best teams currently, and I would even put them at #1 and #2 with Bayern #3, but that's personal preference.
This was the 100th Champions League match for Chelsea since Roman Abramovich assumed ownership of the club in June 2003. Since then, no other team has played more than 91 Champions League matches and only one team has won more points than Chelsea's 180 (Barcelona with 190 points from 91 matches).
[/QUOTE]
Using your stolen money to spend billions of euros on football players can get you a team that wins alot, how surprising.
That's funny. I recall many people saying that "parking the bus" wouldn't work on Bayern and that they would totally rape Chelsea.
Chelsea won and you haters should get over it. But hey, why don't you lecture me about how you are supposed to play football in order to be worthy of a win?
This was the 100th Champions League match for Chelsea since Roman Abramovich assumed ownership of the club in June 2003. Since then, no other team has played more than 91 Champions League matches and only one team has won more points than Chelsea's 180 (Barcelona with 190 points from 91 matches).
Using your stolen money to spend billions of euros on football players can get you a team that wins alot, how surprising.[/QUOTE]
On May 20 2012 21:22 deichkind wrote: robben lost the game...sucked all game long, 1 shot that hit the target rest was way off...thanks robben...blah!!!
grats to Chelsea
I don't know man, I actually think Robben played quite well. He was bad with the corners, free kicks and the penalty. But he put alot of people in scoring position and was the most dangerous Bayern player.
On May 20 2012 21:22 deichkind wrote: robben lost the game...sucked all game long, 1 shot that hit the target rest was way off...thanks robben...blah!!!
grats to Chelsea
I don't know man, I actually think Robben played quite well. He was bad with the corners, free kicks and the penalty. But he put alot of people in scoring position and was the most dangerous Bayern player.
Gomez sucked. With a killer guy like drogba, bayern would have won 3:0.
On May 20 2012 21:22 deichkind wrote: robben lost the game...sucked all game long, 1 shot that hit the target rest was way off...thanks robben...blah!!!
grats to Chelsea
I don't know man, I actually think Robben played quite well. He was bad with the corners, free kicks and the penalty. But he put alot of people in scoring position and was the most dangerous Bayern player.
Gomez sucked. With a killer guy like drogba, bayern would have won 3:0.
Hope Claudio Pizzarro comes next season.
Yeah, Gomez always seems to fuck shit up in ridiculous ways whenever I see him play. I know people like to hate Robben cos he can be a bit of a cunt with all the diving, but I don't think blaming him is really appropriate here.
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
They weren't outclassed in the Home game vs Napoli.
They pulled a Greece 2004, and perfectly. Good Job for Chelsea.
It's interesting that Chelsea never lost in the CL under Di Matteo!
Why do people keep comparing this to the Euro 2004, Chelsea has been a top team in Europe for at least 6 years now, even if they aren't usually the first pick favorites to win in whatever they compete at. Greece is just a garbage team that came from nowhere to win in 2004, then disappeared again into nothingness.
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
They weren't outclassed in the Home game vs Napoli.
They pulled a Greece 2004, and perfectly. Good Job for Chelsea.
It's interesting that Chelsea never lost in the CL under Di Matteo!
Why do people keep comparing this to the Euro 2004, Chelsea has been a top team in Europe for at least 6 years now, even if they aren't usually the first pick favorites to win in whatever they compete at. Greece is just a garbage team that came from nowhere to win in 2004, then disappeared again into nothingness.
Atleast Greece winning was hilarious, this just made me sad
people complaining how there is too much luck invovled in starcraft 2 should be forced to watch all of chelseas games in the knockout phase, they were outclassed every single game and came to win the title haha
They weren't outclassed in the Home game vs Napoli.
They pulled a Greece 2004, and perfectly. Good Job for Chelsea.
It's interesting that Chelsea never lost in the CL under Di Matteo!
Why do people keep comparing this to the Euro 2004, Chelsea has been a top team in Europe for at least 6 years now, even if they aren't usually the first pick favorites to win in whatever they compete at. Greece is just a garbage team that came from nowhere to win in 2004, then disappeared again into nothingness.
Atleast Greece winning was hilarious, this just made me sad
Why? Because a team with an incredible fighting spirit shouldn't be winning? Oh, right. Their play style is not your cup of tea. Therefore, they are not worthy winners of CL 2012.
Haven't watched Robben in years. Does he always do corners, penalties and free kicks? I mean he didnt do shit with them. Or it was just a bad night right?
On May 20 2012 21:40 Happystreet wrote: Haven't watched Robben in years. Does he always do corners, penalties and free kicks? I mean he didnt do shit with them. Or it was just a bad night right?
This was a particularly bad night. He used to be good at it last year, he does alot worse these days in general though.
On May 20 2012 21:40 Happystreet wrote: Haven't watched Robben in years. Does he always do corners, penalties and free kicks? I mean he didnt do shit with them. Or it was just a bad night right?
Bayern has been notoriously bad with corners and free kicks for years. I mean those guys don't do anything besides playing football all day and Robben managed to shoot 20 corners and not one of them lead to something like a good opportunity to score a goal. That's just pathetic. Chelsea one the other hand scored with their first corner. Robben was their first option for penalties all season and he is quite good at it but he sux when the stakes get really high. He couldn't score the penalty vs Dortmund which would at least kept them in the title race and he got really lucky with his penalty vs Real in the regular time and didn't want to shoot in the penalty shoot-out vs Real. Therefore I didn't understand that he got to shoot the one yesterday, they should have let Gomez take the penalty.
Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
But luck is a part of the game. That's why football is so beautiful and so fun to watch!
On May 20 2012 19:33 hewley wrote: Well, I just didn't find the way Chelsea played in the CL appealing. Of course, if it is a winning method, you have to stick to it. On the other hand, I like the way they play in the Premier League and the league itself in general. To those who appreciate defending (I do too): What happens if two teams play each other who have the same mindset (playing safe, good tactical play, defending, etc.)? I am interested.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
You didn't watch a single match from the Netherlands apart from the final, did you? We beat every nation playing superior and lost the match that we didn't.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
On May 20 2012 07:11 DeadBull wrote: I will not watch football for the next 2 weeks and I will not watch any chelsea game until they stop playing so fucking unenterntaining.
You don't have to watch Chelsea's games. You aren't a believer and a lover of the game clearly saying bs like that. They played a defensive style, but it worked.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Nah they should have a penalty shoot-out at the start of EVERY knockout game. If they game is tied after normal + injury time then the team that won the shoot-out wins. That way you have awesome penalty shoot-outs at the start of every game and one team is forced to attack during injury time. More excitement all round.
Lol what??? So lets say chelsea won the P-shootout at the start of the CL final instead, so Bayern attacks for 90 min, its even, oh look same result and exact same game, chelsea will still just park the bus lol :O:O:O:O:O
I don't mind Chelsea winning, but on the whole, Bayern were the better team. They created way more opportunities and should have sealed the game long before extra time. Congratz to Chelsea though, for beating the Germans on penalites. I don't think anybody expected that.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
That would be lovely, but it's practically impossible and will never happen. The current format is pretty good imo; 120mins is about the limit for a lot of players, and certainly making them play longer or on the next day would be ridiculous.
And while penalties are fucking terrifying, they get the job done.
On May 20 2012 22:59 Xorphene wrote: Yum so many tears in this thread.
As a Stoke fan I applaud Chelsea and find all the "beautiful football should win!!" posts absolutely hilarious.
Hehe, yeah. People seem to think it's a travesty when the underdog wins... like how it was a travesty when 10 man chelsea defended against the best attacking side in the world for about an hour with a relatively untested interim manager and their usual captain/leader sent off.
It's like SC2 and people whining about MVP cheesing. People only appreciate certain things, for some reason.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Nah they should have a penalty shoot-out at the start of EVERY knockout game. If they game is tied after normal + injury time then the team that won the shoot-out wins. That way you have awesome penalty shoot-outs at the start of every game and one team is forced to attack during injury time. More excitement all round.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
The regame was in place in the 60s and 70s, and it wasn't great. Think of all the fans needing to suddenly book accomodation for the next few days (because playing matches on consecutive days is retarded, by the way). The regame is in place in the FA cup, and hardly anyone watches the second game, simply because the excitement has peaked and gone.
Penalties is fair. It tests the mettle of players, if anything.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
Garbage, if you are able to defend as Chelsea did last night for 120 minutes then you can argue they are the same ability as Bayern in a different way.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Nah they should have a penalty shoot-out at the start of EVERY knockout game. If they game is tied after normal + injury time then the team that won the shoot-out wins. That way you have awesome penalty shoot-outs at the start of every game and one team is forced to attack during injury time. More excitement all round.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Nah they should have a penalty shoot-out at the start of EVERY knockout game. If they game is tied after normal + injury time then the team that won the shoot-out wins. That way you have awesome penalty shoot-outs at the start of every game and one team is forced to attack during injury time. More excitement all round.
I actually really like this.
Quite hard to attack during injury time, especially if you used your subs before it (not a question of motivation).
Clearly Chelsea weren't even close to being the best European team this season (much like Bayern) but if you look at how close they have been over the last 7 years, then yes they should have won ONE cup. Barca/Real will have next year but Chelsea's sqaud's time is ending.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Nah they should have a penalty shoot-out at the start of EVERY knockout game. If they game is tied after normal + injury time then the team that won the shoot-out wins. That way you have awesome penalty shoot-outs at the start of every game and one team is forced to attack during injury time. More excitement all round.
I actually really like this.
Quite hard to attack during injury time, especially if you used your subs before it (not a question of motivation).
Clearly Chelsea weren't even close to being the best European team this season (much like Bayern) but if you look at how close they have been over the last 7 years, then yes they should have won ONE cup. Barca/Real will have next year but Chelsea's sqaud's time is ending.
Defending takes energy too. The problem is both teams often "give up" in injury time and just sit back and wait for penalties. If one team was on the brink of losing they would find a way to attack.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
Garbage, if you are able to defend as Chelsea did last night for 120 minutes then you can argue they are the same ability as Bayern in a different way.
One corner from Chelsea to twenty from Bayern. And they scored that once. Bayern also missed a penalty during the match. You can't really argue they have the "same ability in a different way", unless you count relying on sheer luck an ability...
Some of you don't seem to understand, it has nothing to do with an ugly style vs a beautiful style, at least in my opinion. Defensive style can be quite nice when done right. The problem is about a style that relies on being extremely lucky to win, which is typical of teams which are heavily the underdog.
On May 21 2012 00:21 BillClinton wrote: You cant win the ch league by luck. It wasnt nice to watch Chelsea play but you have to admit they played efficiently.
And why not? statistically-wise, it's perfectly possible to win a CL being lucky. However the same can't be said if you want to win 2, 3 or more CLs in a row. This championship is the best example you can get.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
Garbage, if you are able to defend as Chelsea did last night for 120 minutes then you can argue they are the same ability as Bayern in a different way.
One corner from Chelsea to twenty from Bayern. And they scored that once. Bayern also missed a penalty during the match. You can't really argue they have the "same ability in a different way", unless you count relying on sheer luck an ability...
Some of you don't seem to understand, it has nothing to do with an ugly style vs a beautiful style, at least in my opinion. Defensive style can be quite nice when done right. The problem is about a style that relies on being extremely lucky to win, which is typical of teams which are heavily the underdog.
Heh? Sheer luck that bayern failed to do anything with not one, but TWENTY attempts? At what stage is it not lucky and just good defending? Lucky that drogba had a perfect header from a corner?
Maybe luck if robben hit the bar like messi, but cech saved that pen. He also saved 2 in the shootout. How do you know when its luck or not? You are just chalking off EVERYTHING to luck.
On May 20 2012 22:02 GhostOwl wrote: Chelsea going to Finals is like Netherland going to World Cup finals, not because of skill, but more because of luck/good fortune. Netherlands rightfully lost as the lesser team while in this case, Chelsea managed to survive to make it a tie, and then take the game through penalty kicks.....
I really think they should stop deciding the fate of matches on Penalty Kicks for semi-final or final of any tournament
Problem is do what then? Golden goal for 3 hours? First team to have a player die of exhaustion loses?
No, tie the game. Have the teams play a rematch the next day.
Really? Venues can't be booked on short notice, and what if they tie the game again? Do it for a third time?
I understand its troublesome but it's the champions league finals. Not the 3rd time, you can have the penalty shootout after 2nd tie. It makes it so that if you are able to tie a team twice, your skill level is around the same so penalty shootout is more fair.
Garbage, if you are able to defend as Chelsea did last night for 120 minutes then you can argue they are the same ability as Bayern in a different way.
One corner from Chelsea to twenty from Bayern. And they scored that once. Bayern also missed a penalty during the match. You can't really argue they have the "same ability in a different way", unless you count relying on sheer luck an ability...
Some of you don't seem to understand, it has nothing to do with an ugly style vs a beautiful style, at least in my opinion. Defensive style can be quite nice when done right. The problem is about a style that relies on being extremely lucky to win, which is typical of teams which are heavily the underdog.
Heh? Sheer luck that bayern failed to do anything with not one, but TWENTY attempts? At what stage is it not lucky and just good defending? Lucky that drogba had a perfect header from a corner?
Maybe luck if robben hit the bar like messi, but cech saved that pen. He also saved 2 in the shootout. How do you know when its luck or not? You are just chalking off EVERYTHING to luck.
Luck is the term I'm using instead of the more serious concept of probability. So let's see it from this perspective: If we estimated Chelsea's ratio of "corner goals in a match/ nº of total corners in a match", I'm quite sure it'd be below 0.1 (that is, they "usually" convert one or less out of ten corners). That's just a rough estimation as I don't have the numbers but you get the idea. Now if we only considered Chelea's winning corner as the match deciding factor, we can say they won thanks to getting that 1 out of 10 lucky corner. However, the same applies to other factors. What's the ratio of stopped penalties by Cech and the ratio of scored penalties by Robben? Again I don't have the numbers but it's fair to say that Robben would probably score 6-8 out of 10 penalties. So again, Chelsea was on the "lucky" side.
If we add all the different factors such as these up, we can say from intuition that Chelsea was really lucky in the finals. And not only that, if we also stretch the sample by taking into account Chelsea-Barça semis (with all those missed shots, missed penalty, etc.), then it is fair to say Chelsea has been very very lucky, and such an event can only happen very rarely.
On May 21 2012 00:21 BillClinton wrote: You cant win the ch league by luck. It wasnt nice to watch Chelsea play but you have to admit they played efficiently.
Also, don't you find there to be some excitement in a team desperately trying to turtle against amazing attacking players? One slip up and they lose...so there is so much tension. Actually very little time spent in midfield which is of course the most boring area for a game to take place. Back and forth meaningless passes are much less exciting than constant attacks in the final third. Anyway, it was a DIFFERENT experience to what I'm sure many people are used to...so why not just roll with it and say well, we got to see an unusual playstyle that actually worked...part luck part grit/determination and part quality in finishing.
You just can't fault Chelsea's finishing in this cup run, even Branislav Ivanovic's improbable winner against Napoli at Stamford Bridge!
On May 21 2012 00:21 BillClinton wrote: You cant win the ch league by luck. It wasnt nice to watch Chelsea play but you have to admit they played efficiently.
Also, don't you find there to be some excitement in a team desperately trying to turtle against amazing attacking players? One slip up and they lose...so there is so much tension. Actually very little time spent in midfield which is of course the most boring area for a game to take place. Back and forth meaningless passes are much less exciting than constant attacks in the final third. Anyway, it was a DIFFERENT experience to what I'm sure many people are used to...so why not just roll with it and say well, we got to see an unusual playstyle that actually worked...part luck part grit/determination and part quality in finishing.
You just can't fault Chelsea's finishing in this cup run, even Branislav Ivanovic's improbable winner against Napoli at Stamford Bridge!
Haha, exciting for you to watch maybe. But for me (and probably most chelsea fans) its only exciting once the final whistle goes
On the pen shootout: The thing I hate about pen shootouts, whilst being a lottery, is it makes it seem like 1 or 2 player lost it for their team.
Haha well yeah I am a Chelsea fan I just went to Stamford Bridge to cheer the parade!!! It was horrible to watch every one of those games but when you look back at them...pure magic!!!!
OMG look at the german lady rofl!! She doesnt look so happy there Haha so funny thanks for the picture! The 2 sat down look like they don't understand football xD
So just to keep this thread alive longer than it has to be ...
Just realized what John Terry did after the win. What a wanker. All about you JT, well done. Kids being told of the legendary Chelsea win in 100 years time will be under the impression that captain lionheart the brave lead the mighty Chels against the Bavarian giants to victory.
On May 22 2012 07:18 Surrealistic wrote: So just to keep this thread alive longer than it has to be ...
Just realized what John Terry did after the win. What a wanker. All about you JT, well done. Kids being told of the legendary Chelsea win in 100 years time will be under the impression that captain lionheart the brave lead the mighty Chels against the Bavarian giants to victory.
He lifted the trophy with lampard as captains of the club. People making an issue just like making an issue out of everything. The champions league isn't ONE game, and he was part of 3 the biggest games. He and lampard ALWAYS lift the trophies.
Yeah, someone show me a cup where JT hasn't lifted it with Lamps lol. I think the only one was carling cup final vs Arse when JT got knocked out and had to go to hospital.
On May 22 2012 07:18 Surrealistic wrote: So just to keep this thread alive longer than it has to be ...
Just realized what John Terry did after the win. What a wanker. All about you JT, well done. Kids being told of the legendary Chelsea win in 100 years time will be under the impression that captain lionheart the brave lead the mighty Chels against the Bavarian giants to victory.
Psh he's not a wanker he's been the team's leader and rock for countless years. He didn't deserve to be on the sidelines for the trophy presentation just because of a technicality.
By the way I've been rewatching the game countless times and it still amazes me how great didier's goal was. Top corner, from the first header he got. How many players could have pulled that off? The difficult thing about coping in Chelsea against top teams is that we don't get lots and lots of chances like most teams, we get only one or two and you have to be on the next level in terms of scoring in order to be able to make an impact.
Also you can't say enough good things about Cahill and Luiz. Cahill was holding his strained muscle in pain after about 20 minutes into the game. Can't believe he made 120 mins of the whole game.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img.uefa.com/imgml/TP/teams/logos/70x70/52914.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Ligue_des_champions_NB.JPG/200px-Ligue_des_champions_NB.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://footballformation.co.uk/team/442d/190512140712.png)
nice sport day!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bkNuP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://eur.yimg.com/ng/sp/eurosport/20120520/25/09a7dfaf8bffc89e23e5f69cabd6ce6a.jpg)
