|
On May 07 2009 10:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:
okayy erm
size of camp nou
105 metres (115 yd) x 68 metres (74 yd)
size of stamford bridge
113 x 73 yards (103 x 67 metres)
taken from wiki!
blaming anything on stamford bridge being smaller than camp nou is absolutely ridiculous lol.. and besides, its not like barcelona was able to create much on camp nou either.
even Alex Ferguson said that the bigger pitch helps barcelona and all specialists agree on that
|
Norway28733 Posts
its 1 meter wider.. 50 extra centimeters to each side of the goal.. I'd agree it could be substancial if stamford bridge was 60 meters wide or something, but theres practically no difference.
and like I stated : barcelona hardly created anything in the first leg either..
|
|
|
it was fun to see drogba and messi competing to see who could get flop the most times during the tie
i don't know why so many people here are upset about refereeing decisions, its a premiership team versus a spanish team, they could have bought the ref and there is no way that chelsea should have lost that
im glad to see two teams from different countries in the finals, it always produces better matches
|
On May 07 2009 12:21 uberMatt wrote:
it was fun to see drogba and messi competing to see who could get flop the most times during the tie
i don't know why so many people here are upset about refereeing decisions, its a premiership team versus a spanish team, they could have bought the ref and there is no way that chelsea should have lost that
im glad to see two teams from different countries in the finals, it always produces better matches
na messi actually has decency he doesn't go down just to make a scene, i'd even say when someone kicks him he actually stands stil, unlike drogba , i think in just 180 mins he faked at least 10 tackles , ridiculous -_-
|
On May 07 2009 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
seriously ilj.psa.. barcelona has been demolishing team after team 4-0 or more this season.. you think any random top 40 team in europe could just defend to a draw if they play defensively? that's absolutely ridiculous, the reason why barcelona rapes all the other spanish teams is that they play at a higher speed than their opponents are able to keep up with. then they face chelsea, whom are used to playing at barcelonas pace and suddenly barcelona creates less than 5 decent goalscoring opportunities over 180 minutes..
understand your point but disagree, there are plenty of Spanish teams that play fast-paced non-stop football i can say Villareal,Valencia and Atl.Madrid may all be good examples of this.
|
On May 07 2009 12:29 ilj.psa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2009 12:21 uberMatt wrote:
it was fun to see drogba and messi competing to see who could get flop the most times during the tie
i don't know why so many people here are upset about refereeing decisions, its a premiership team versus a spanish team, they could have bought the ref and there is no way that chelsea should have lost that
im glad to see two teams from different countries in the finals, it always produces better matches
na messi actually has decency he doesn't go down just to make a scene, i'd even say when someone kicks him he actually stands stil, unlike drogba , i think in just 180 mins he faked at least 10 tackles , ridiculous -_-
87:23 slow motion replay
|
I don't understand why the Barcelona fans are arguing they are indeed "MORE" deserving to win this game than Chelsea using Barcelona's domestic and past performances as points of argument. If you wanna argue something, argue on this game. Every match is a new match. In Nou Camp Barca had the better chances, In Stamford Bridge Chelsea had the better chances. And it's stupid to say there isn't a single penalty call out of the 3. It's clear the ref didn't want to kill the game by awarding a penalty. This is a human thing to do.
Malouda's foul was in the penalty box. Someone said there was nothing but there was a clear palm push on Malouda's chest IN the penalty box or inside of the line least to say. Drogba was in front of the defender with his shirt pulled in a goalscoring opportunity. Another handball for Anelka's incident. Even piquet admitted he's lucky the ref overlooked that. The one that really doesn't count is Abidal's sent off and Ballack's crazy call for handball (which is really only arm's ball).
Moreover, is this how Barcelona USUALLY play? For fans who says they think this is how Barcelona always play don't tell me you watch Spanish football every week because that can only mean your brain is so screwed. I'm neither a fan of Barca, Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal. I support Nottingham Forest so I can tell you as a neutral, Chelsea had the better of chances in THIS game and Barcelona over the 2 legs didn't get to play the way they usually so fantastically do in La Liga. All these talk of defensive, offensive play is also *&#%ing bullshit. Chelsea didin't play hole up in defence THIS game and have attacked with very promising chances MANY times. Barcelona on the other hand didn't attack as MANY times as they usually do. So, wanna make your point, make it on this game. Don't say their pitch is this and this long and experts say blah blah (only for LiquidDrone to prove it wrong) or how 100 goals in La liga meant anything for yesterday's match, it only goes to show you are a blind supporter who lost the ability to call a spade a spade.
Wake up to it. Barca won. Chelsea played better today. Chelsea was robbed of some official calls. Barca took their rare chance this game well. Chelsea didn't play defensive. Barca didn't play the kind of attacking game to the extent of their domestic. End of story. And I'm talking about this game. Make another post and sing about how good Barca is domestically if you wish to sing high praises about them out of this game. Like that we don't need competitions, we just need reputations to decide who wins.
|
On May 07 2009 10:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
its 1 meter wider.. 50 extra centimeters to each side of the goal.. I'd agree it could be substancial if stamford bridge was 60 meters wide or something, but theres practically no difference.
and like I stated : barcelona hardly created anything in the first leg either..
Hah
Camp Nou is actually a bit bigger then what you posted, its 105x72 m
http://www.123football.com/stadiums/spain/camp-nou/index.htm
while Stamford Bridge roughly is 103x68 m
it does make a difference, 2 extra meters on each side is huge. Think of extra 2 meters before the ball is out, that's a lot more running to do. And if your team likes to play wide it will fully utilize all 4 meters of difference
we talking 556 square meters more to cover. If you dont think thats substantial, Anelka does http://www.tribalfootball.com/anelka-chelsea-pitch-size-blame-home-wobbles-218533
and barcelona dominated first game i thought!
|
On May 07 2009 13:57 food wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2009 10:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
its 1 meter wider.. 50 extra centimeters to each side of the goal.. I'd agree it could be substancial if stamford bridge was 60 meters wide or something, but theres practically no difference.
and like I stated : barcelona hardly created anything in the first leg either.. Hah Camp Nou is actually a bit bigger then what you posted, its 105x72 m http://www.123football.com/stadiums/spain/camp-nou/index.htmwhile Stamford Bridge roughly is 103x68 m it does make a difference, 2 extra meters is huge. Think of extra 2 meters before the ball is out, that's a lot more running to do. And if your team likes to play wide it will fully utilize all 4 meters of difference we talking 556 square meters more to cover. If you dont think thats substantial, Anelka does http://www.tribalfootball.com/anelka-chelsea-pitch-size-blame-home-wobbles-218533and barcelona dominated first game i thought!
And because Barcelona has a bigger pitch than anyone else, that makes them immune to not playing at a standard lower than usual for all other pitches? Man if it works that way I'm sure Man U and Chelsea can come up with larger pitches in terms of the kind of money they had because that makes a good point regardless of their performance in a particular game.
|
If you want to get into penalties, there was only 1, when ball found Piquets hand. There is a really slim chance that ref can overlook this after seeing it, but sometimes they won't award it if wasn't intentional. If you remember Portugal vs France a while ago ( euro 2000), ref gave a penalty for something similar( ball found Abel Xaviers hand, 100% not intentional play) and it caused a ton of arguing. It's up to referee but i DO agree it was a penalty here.
First incident with Malouda - no penalty and no free kick, but since ref decided there was a foul, he gave a free kick and it was a really good call CONSIDERING he thought there was a foul, but you don't award penalties in these situations. Malouda was out of position to begin with and wasn't threatening anything. Very little contact here, they got most out of it.
|
oraaaayt manu barca final!!! that should make for a great final 
and i didn't know a footbal pitch could vary in size 0_0. i mean seriously i thought they had standard dimensions for that...
|
On May 07 2009 14:21 DarkYoDA wrote:
And because Barcelona has a bigger pitch than anyone else, that makes them immune to not playing at a standard lower than usual for all other pitches? Man if it works that way I'm sure Man U and Chelsea can come up with larger pitches in terms of the kind of money they had because that makes a good point regardless of their performance in a particular game.
I'm not sure what you mean, what I'm saying is Barcelona likes to play wide and used to playing wide, most pitches in Spain are rather big and when you play daily on a relatively big field and you have a game vs a defensive team that always fills up the midfield and eat you AND THEY HAVE a small pitch to top it off? Sure it will add up. Pitch is not something to blame for a loss, we are just making points here and it was one of them. Barca was awful, Chelsea had advantage, ref made bad calls, pitch was small.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I was under the impression that Chelsea turtled early and often. They turtled more whenever Barca organized its attack well. At one point Chelsea dedicated itself to clearing the ball out of its half to no one in particular just to be safe.
Chelsea could have turtled even more than they did. That is true. Barca could have been far more aggressive than they were. That is also true. Compared against each other Barca played far more aggressively than Chelsea did. That is the style and tactics employed by the two clubs when they played the two games. In terms of quality of play and goal scoring chances, style doesn't matter.
What counts there was how disorganized and toothless the Barcelona attack was for most of the game. They moved the ball around, didn't find an opening, and made a lot of mistakes. The personnel package they had to deploy today does have something to do with it.
|
I have bruises from celebrating.
YEAH!
God, Barca got lucky.
|
they were bad calls both ways. sure chelsea got the worse end of the stick but nothing extraordinary in football imo. disappointing to see hiddink acting all shocked and even insinuating conspiracy when he's had so many instances of lucky referring throughout his career. overall a fair game and a fair result. very fitting that chelsea got punished for their defensive tactics in the very last minute when they were sooo close to achieving what they set out to do from the very beginning of the match, score one and park the bus. and please don't try to take away from what barca has achieved. they beat chelsea, a top premier league side, and did it while playing their heart out to the very last minute. they didn't have their best game. they seemed all very rushed and unsettled like the commentators have noted, but it was verses hiddink's chelsea. hiddink's a genius and they've been playing lights out ever since he took rein. personally i don't see manu or any other team for that matter having an easier time against them. it was just a clash of titans. when pretty much every damn commentator is hailing barca as one of europe's very best teams, they're not just being stupid.
|
terrible officiating. 3 very clear penalties that werent awarded (one is understandable, maybe two, but three penalties not being awarded?), 1 red card where there wasn't any contact at all. its a shame to say this, but the referee ruined the game.
|
Heh, bad referiing in both games, but it was bad for both. Seems like ppl tend to forgot Ballacks handballs in early mins, surely the game would have been different if Barca went 0-1 early on... Or if in first leg ref would have awarded some yellow cards for Chelsea, like he should have = bans for this game, or if they awarded penalty for Barca...
if, if , etc etc..
|
Norway28733 Posts
|
On May 07 2009 16:22 ItchReliever wrote:
they were bad calls both ways. sure chelsea got the worse end of the stick but nothing extraordinary in football imo. disappointing to see hiddink acting all shocked and even insinuating conspiracy when he's had so many instances of lucky referring throughout his career. overall a fair game and a fair result. very fitting that chelsea got punished for their defensive tactics in the very last minute when they were sooo close to achieving what they set out to do from the very beginning of the match, score one and park the bus. and please don't try to take away from what barca has achieved. they beat chelsea, a top premier league side, and did it while playing their heart out to the very last minute. they didn't have their best game. they seemed all very rushed and unsettled like the commentators have noted, but it was verses hiddink's chelsea. hiddink's a genius and they've been playing lights out ever since he took rein. personally i don't see manu or any other team for that matter having an easier time against them. it was just a clash of titans. when pretty much every damn commentator is hailing barca as one of europe's very best teams, they're not just being stupid.
well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
