|
On May 07 2009 06:05 Telemako wrote:
You're from UK, if you really believe football is designed to put 10 players around the box and kick the ball hoping for a strong guy to run a lot you should switch to the american football.
At the first leg I even felt embarrased when Cech just served directly to Valdes like 15 times. Do you really want that to pass? 180 minutes with 10 men on the box and a lucky goal should pass? C'MON!!!!!
You're from Spain, if you really believe football is designed to be a fucking cartoon where overpaid players twinkle their way around the pitch for 90 minutes and the team with the best attack but not necessarily the best defence always wins then...
It is just perspectives. Saying that Barcelona deserved to beat Chelsea simply because they played more 'exciting' football is stupid imho.
Although if one takes into account the first leg in Barcelona, then overall Barca deserve to be in the final - just.
Just please dont turn football into a stupid argument where the more attractive solution wins every time. Any tactic, as long as it can win games, is valid, and should be treated with respect.
|
On May 07 2009 05:54 Kaolla wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2009 05:52 foeffa wrote:On May 07 2009 05:47 Kaolla wrote:
fuck barcalona and that fkn messi newb... seriously the most overrated player ever next to henry (by magic phil) god i hate barca.... hope they rape manu tho... i hate them even more... god the 2 shittiest kk teams of europe in the finals... bah bah -_- This is a victory for football. Even if Chelsea deserved the win, who cares? The winner takes it all. Barcelona plays stellar football and now the final is worth watching.  Messi overrated? In which cave have you spent the previous years? And Henry has played really well this season too. I can't fking believe people can actually root for a team that crawls in its own goal and then waits for a counter (unless you live near Stanford Bridge ^^). i think supporters rarely support teams for playing the best football, otherwise all ppl in the world would be for like 5 teams max, that would kill football -_-
Why would Barcelona have such a huge foreign fanbase if it weren't for their football flair? Because their fans are all secretly Catalunian refugees? Because Guardiola wears leather ties? Because of the architectural features of Nou Camp? If the club you're spurring on is not the one of your hometown, then that must surely be because they are a team with a great football philosophy and dito performance, why else would you call yourself a football fan if you don't support the game being played beautifully? "I support for FC Suckass because their play style is revolting!" Of course beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, so even though I can't understand what one would find attractive in Chelsea's style of football, it's still everyone's right to do so. I just won't get it. ^^
And secondly, since when is being fan of e.g. Barcelona mutually exclusive with cheering for an other club? It's not because I cheer for Barcelona that I don't cheer for any Belgian club (although they tend to suck balls except for a select few). Whenever international football is concerned or the primera division I root for Barça because most of the time they bring awesome football.
Addendum: that's also the reason I cheer for the Dutch national side in every WC/EC, because they have the potential to deliver beautiful football. And that's why I 'll always cheer for them, rather than the wood choppers in say, the Australian national team. Obviously I also cheer for my own national side but they just don't seem to be able to qualify anymore. :p
|
messi didnt have a good game either, alot of things went wrong for barca . either way if you ask me who is the better team id say barca definitely
|
Does he scream Allah over and over again?
edit: I sense a slump coming up for Ballack, this has got to be frustrating.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On May 07 2009 06:24 poilord wrote:Does he scream Allah over and over again?
That's what I thought, too. Crazy announcer.
|
On May 07 2009 06:22 AngryLlama wrote:
messi didnt have a good game either, alot of things went wrong for barca . either way if you ask me who is the better team id say barca definitely
I agree, barça had a strange alignment today and didn't play as good as usual although we should give credit to Chelsea for that. All in all, in my eyes Barça deserved winning the 180º and Chelsea the last 90º. I think it's good for football for Barça to go to finals. ManU - Barça sounds so exciting!
|
"if you really believe football is designed to be a fucking cartoon where overpaid players twinkle their way around the pitch for 90 minutes"
Where can I sign up?
I don't understand those that argue in favor of such a defensive tactics.
Not entertaining, not beautiful.
God, I know someone is going to tell me how sitting 10 behind the ball is beautiful blah blah blah.
I will say that Chelsea played better today.
Sucks to be them but the better team doesn't always win. From an American perspective, this happens a lot in football/soccer, don't whine now.
|
Football is not about deserving a win, it's about scoring the most goals.
Still, I'm glad that constructive play paid off for once.
|
First leg Barcelona was denied clear penalty also. This game they were given a red card without a contact T_T... If some1 deserved red card it was Drogba + Anelka for their diving.
|
|
|
On May 07 2009 06:29 Spike wrote:
God, I know someone is going to tell me how sitting 10 behind the ball is beautiful blah blah blah.
heh. No its not beautiful, my point is that it doesnt matter. If i was running a team and i found a way to win every game but it turned out to be the most boring strategy ever, i'd still do it.
I just feel that such complaining does a disservice to the players and manager.
|
|
|
I think it was the best shot Iniesta has ever taken. That's where his legend starts.
|
On May 07 2009 06:29 Spike wrote:
"if you really believe football is designed to be a fucking cartoon where overpaid players twinkle their way around the pitch for 90 minutes"
Where can I sign up?
I don't understand those that argue in favor of such a defensive tactics.
Not entertaining, not beautiful.
God, I know someone is going to tell me how sitting 10 behind the ball is beautiful blah blah blah.
I will say that Chelsea played better today.
Sucks to be them but the better team doesn't always win. From an American perspective, this happens a lot in football/soccer, don't whine now.
Please ignore Crook, he's reacting to some ridiculous posts in this thread from people who should know better.
No-one is arguing in favour of defensive tactics.
To play football at the highest level you have to have more than one way of playing. You can't just pass the ball along the ground, never have a shot and never make a decent cross.
Passing the ball quickly works great when you play against weaker opposition who can't keep up. All the top teams can do this INCLUDING CHELSEA. Their 3-1 win at Fulham only this weekend shows that.
However when you play against other great sides you have to be more intelligent than that. You have to be able to create something out of nothing. Chelsea created a fantastic goal, and caused enough trouble to cause Barce to concede 2 clear penalties... except they weren't given.
Barcelona were simply not as good tonight and they didn't live up to the hype.
I can't believe I'm saying all this, I hate Chelsea! But this is not justice.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
A sport that focuses entirely on defense is really really boring. The casual fans just won't go to watch it, and that signals a decline of the sport and declining salaries for the professionals.
But the game shouldn't be a joke either, so the ruling body should strike a balance between entertainment and playability. A more entertaining game is in the interest of the sport, but teams playing the sport have to use the best strategies to win. Usually, the players that a team assembles is more in the context of the league and its fans. Chelsea's style says more about the style of English football league as a whole.
It also hints at what fans of the premiership like to see. It is not excitement, but rather snatch a win or force a draw. This is pretty much how all of the bottom table teams play when they are matched against the big 4. They park the bus with the goal of just fishing out a point.
|
On May 07 2009 06:43 Klive5ive wrote:
Please ignore Crook,
Okay sorry, I am new here. Team fanboys piss me off. The games over now. I still think my points are valid but whatever.
|
Barcelona had pretty much the same team last year and pretty much the same thing happened against united. Rather boring games. However the final Chelsea Manure was awesome.
Barca not doing anything but trying not to lose possession of the ball and United trying to score goals and win the match. Bad games just like this one, and it's not because of Chelsea backing home, they back home because Barca is simply weak against strong players and strong defense.
Barcelona is not really playing attacking football, they very seldom try to get players into scoring positions and in the box, they set up camp on the opponents half, but they don't do much trying to score so I don't see what's "attacking" about that. It's just another form of defensive play, trying to see if they get an opportunity somehow without risking losing possession.
Another person here in the thread was criticizing Alves wasting crosses.
Not really.
Because you have such a slim chance of scoring if you don't put a lot of power into the cross, otherwise it will simply sail into the arms of the keeper and you can't head it with power. What he's trying to do is a lot harder than simply getting the ball into the box. Take Lahm for instance, a rather overrated full back I must say, since he can't hit drive crosses worth shit, simply lame backspin flops right into the defense.
And finally - YES - to score many goals in modern football you HAVE to hit some long chancey balls or take chances and push more players into the box risking counterattack or take shots from bad angles hoping for rebounds etc etc.
Please don't use Barcelonas record against weaker teams when it comes to scoring goals, like the spanish league, spanish defense in general is plain awful, and barcelona and real are so far ahead of the others in the league resource wise it's not even funny.
Sadly, this makes Manure the best team in the world today, since they know the difference between attacking and passing the ball around, plus the have great defense and are dangerous outside the box as well as inside. They can score on corners, free kicks, counter-attacks, long shots, crosses and what have you.
Longish rant, but I felt it needed to be said looking at some of the posts in this thread.
Barcelona isn't bad, that's not what I'm saying, but they don't really play much attacking football (except against weak teams).
Attractive is subjective so I won't comment on that.
I'd rather say they play ineffective football, their defense isn't world class level compared to (pool, Manure, chelsea), they don't have enough physical strength in the squad imo, and strong headers. They'd probably benefit a lot from new central defenders and a good target player striker.
|
On May 07 2009 06:34 nK)Duke wrote:
That's what I meant by trash talking freestyle rappers.
|
On May 07 2009 06:48 Luhh wrote:
Barcelona had pretty much the same team last year and pretty much the same thing happened against united. Rather boring games. However the final Chelsea Manure was awesome.
Barca not doing anything but trying not to lose possession of the ball and United trying to score goals and win the match. Bad games just like this one, and it's not because of Chelsea backing home, they back home because Barca is simply weak against strong players and strong defense.
Barcelona is not really playing attacking football, they very seldom try to get players into scoring positions and in the box, they set up camp on the opponents half, but they don't do much trying to score so I don't see what's "attacking" about that. It's just another form of defensive play, trying to see if they get an opportunity somehow without risking losing possession.
Another person here in the thread was criticizing Alves wasting crosses.
Not really.
Because you have such a slim chance of scoring if you don't put a lot of power into the cross, otherwise it will simply sail into the arms of the keeper and you can't head it with power. What he's trying to do is a lot harder than simply getting the ball into the box. Take Lahm for instance, a rather overrated full back I must say, since he can't hit drive crosses worth shit, simply lame backspin flops right into the defense.
And finally - YES - to score many goals in modern football you HAVE to hit some long chancey balls or take chances and push more players into the box risking counterattack or take shots from bad angles hoping for rebounds etc etc.
Please don't use Barcelonas record against weaker teams when it comes to scoring goals, like the spanish league, spanish defense in general is plain awful, and barcelona and real are so far ahead of the others in the league resource wise it's not even funny.
Sadly, this makes Manure the best team in the world today, since they know the difference between attacking and passing the ball around, plus the have great defense and are dangerous outside the box as well as inside. They can score on corners, free kicks, counter-attacks, long shots, crosses and what have you.
Longish rant, but I felt it needed to be said looking at some of the posts in this thread.
Barcelona isn't bad, that's not what I'm saying, but they don't really play much attacking football (except against weak teams).
Attractive is subjective so I won't comment on that.
I'd rather say they play ineffective football, their defense isn't world class level compared to (pool, Manure, chelsea), they don't have enough physical strength in the squad imo, and strong headers. They'd probably benefit a lot from new central defenders and a good target player striker.
I mostly agree with this
|
On May 07 2009 06:43 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2009 06:29 Spike wrote:
"if you really believe football is designed to be a fucking cartoon where overpaid players twinkle their way around the pitch for 90 minutes"
Where can I sign up?
I don't understand those that argue in favor of such a defensive tactics.
Not entertaining, not beautiful.
God, I know someone is going to tell me how sitting 10 behind the ball is beautiful blah blah blah.
I will say that Chelsea played better today.
Sucks to be them but the better team doesn't always win. From an American perspective, this happens a lot in football/soccer, don't whine now.
Please ignore Crook, he's reacting to some ridiculous posts in this thread from people who should know better. No-one is arguing in favour of defensive tactics. To play football at the highest level you have to have more than one way of playing. You can't just pass the ball along the ground, never have a shot and never make a decent cross. Passing the ball quickly works great when you play against weaker opposition who can't keep up. All the top teams can do this INCLUDING CHELSEA. Their 3-1 win at Fulham only this weekend shows that. However when you play against other great sides you have to be more intelligent than that. You have to be able to create something out of nothing. Chelsea created a fantastic goal, and caused enough trouble to cause Barce to concede 2 clear penalties... except they weren't given. Barcelona were simply not as good tonight and they didn't live up to the hype. I can't believe I'm saying all this, I hate Chelsea! But this is not justice.
Sure, Chelsea can play like that vs Fulham, but could they do it vs a top team, on away ground, with one man less? Not a chance, only one team in the world can. I agree with you that Barcelona's way of playing isn't the smartest but I respect them because they keep trying to play after their vision no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/14ui442.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4fuckr.com/711df189244a/9/3/6/0/e/9360e1e1e4.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i42.tinypic.com/257kspz.jpg)
