On March 13 2013 23:31 Steveling wrote: I like how chelsea fans act like chelseas defending is "a style of play". It would be, don't get me wrong, only though if they played like that with inferior teams, consistently. You don't see them defending with their lives against the bottom half of premiership do you?
Thus they were forced to play like that against barca. The way you talk sc4k just shows that you can't accept the fact that your team is not good enough to play the way barca play even if they tried.
And barca never passes the ball around aimlessly, didn't you see the game yesterday? It was chance after chance and it only cooled down for the last 15mins or so. When barca dictates the pace of the game they never go passive. Or have you forgotten how many high score games they had against top teams that tried to play open football?
It just seems they play passively when the other team is overdoing it with defending, not allowing beautiful football to be played. aka inter, chelsea, real until last year(they are coping better this season).
Ofc you can be one of those people that enjoy catenaccio, to which I can't reply anything, enjoy your team I guess.
It is a style of play. Football snobs just get condescending and arrogant when it leads to Barcelona getting beaten.
It's the style of play that can succeed against Barcelona's tactics. People like you need to grow up and accept that there are different ways to play the game.
Edit: I mean really, I don't see this in any American sports, where when the team that is obviously the greatest overall gets beaten, people from all over make bullshit condescending excuses like this. Yea, people complain about ref's a lot (in every sport), but y'all need to grow up. Barcelona got beaten fair and square in a two-leg semifinal. They couldn't adapt to a different tactic and there aren't any excuses for it.
I'm sick of hearing about teams turtling against Barcelona. Every time they lose like this (Chelsea, Celtic, etc.) Barcelona had a million and one chances to score, and they failed every time. Against Chelsea they had 23 shots, and against Celtic they had 25 with over 80% possession in each of them. How about your convert some of your chances instead of blaming the other team for their tactics?
Let's not forget that in the Chelsea game, Messi dinged a penalty off the bar that would have put them ahead 3-1. And that Barcelona blew a 2-0 lead to a team with 10 men at their home stadium. But let's just blame Chelsea for turtling.
On March 14 2013 03:41 Ysellian wrote: The current system is definitely far too lenient. Diving in the penalty box only gives you a yellow card when spotted and if you succeed you pretty much help your team to a goal. It's a part of the game I really hate.
If a dive in the penalty box gives you a three match suspension no player in their right mind is going to be diving anymore.
The NBA reviews all the plays and hands out fines to players who they deem to have dove. I don't know how well they follow through and get the players to pay up, but it's something. Maybe UEFA could try that for a start, and give suspensions for repeat offenders?
Some people blame the losses on turtle style but that's really not the majority, and that's really not what I think. I said it countless times, it's barca's fault. I'm blaming Chelsea for their football 'disgrace' (they love this word) during BOTH games, not only the second one where they had to defend their advantage... Nobody blames inter because on the first leg they played wonderful and deserved to defend catenaccio style on the second leg. Hell Chelsea even turtled against Bayern, where is their excuse for this game? Bayern style is not Barca style as far as i know... To me Chelsea has been the ugliest CL winner of the last xxx years, The last team I remember playing like this was Greece in 2004 but at least they didnt have a billionaire team...
The 24s rule would be really stupid, and most team cant already make 3 passes in a row so its not such a problem.
I really laughedcat the 'if every team turtled against Barcelona, the game would fix itself over time'. All the teams are already playing like that against barcelona except for a few exceptions... Real Sociedad was one exception and they won barca. Guess how? They simply played better than them this game. Like for any Barca defeats against turtle strats. Turtling works one time every 10 games when they are in shape, and 1 times out of 2-3 when they are out of shape like the last month. With their full physical abilities last year I have absolutely no doubt that they would have crushed Chelsea and qualified during the first leg. But people will say 'no plan b blablabla'. Yesterday they put 4 with the plan A.
Villa being the reason of the win? His positioning gave Messi more freedom, but I would put this win on the team performance and not only one player substitution :S I really am a fan of Villa though and would love to see him being in the starting 11s against the big teams, because i dont like Cesc, and I think the style they have with him + Iniesta on the left wing is a lot less effective than the standard 4-3-3.
A perfect example of football snobbery. In American sports, unless a team wins by dirty/underhanded tactics (as in cheating or ref's making bad calls), you don't criticize people for winning championships with "ugly" play; you analyze why the "better" team failed to defeat their ugly play and why this ugly play was successful for the winning team.
In other words, the football world is full of sore losers. Grow up and stop being a bunch of crybabies.
Also, Milan didn't play any kind of solid game yesterday, so that isn't an example of anything. Obviously this turtling style is the best way to beat Barca (that we know of) because it's the one that's had the most success at beating Barca (even if the success rate is low in and of itself). So if they want to keep winning championships, when they face good teams that use this tactic, they'll have to change their play, and we won't see such boring games of football. It's fairly simple. You could even replace the way that Chelsea/Milan played against them with any other tactic that can (relatively) reliably succeed against Barca and it's the same concept; I only talk about this style because it's the one that people have complained about the most and the one that Barca has failed against most notably. The only way that they will play only this tactic forever and never change is if they are so wildly better than the rest of the world that it doesn't matter, and that simply isn't the case.
You would be right if Chelsea played good but that wasnt the case. They turtled 3 games and still conceded 75 attempts. They qualified and won the title because some kind of higher being had a debt toward the wonderful team that they were 3 or 4 years before that but that never ended up winning this title... How many missed penalties were needed to make the dream come true? How many balls on the post?
And allow me to have my own perception of what is good football and what's ugly, without calling me a freaking 'fanboy'. The day Barcelona lost vs chelsea i was SAD not a SORE loser, I never pinned it on Chelsea, but i guess you read what pleases you too... I can understand that football is a sport and that you need to do everything you can to win. Thats called competitive spirit and I totally have it. But allow me to express my feelings as a spectator and supporter when I say Chelsea was fucking ugly, without calling me a fanboy. I may not be 100% objective but I am not totally retarded yet. Hell, I support my home team, PSG, I supported before they got rich. And let me tell you that I prefered how they played just a year before the qatari acquisition. Now they play the counter attacking style. In CL, I get it, they're new and the team hasnt had so much time to develop a style good enough to compete against the best. But they do the exact same shit vs the last of the french league, and I found this profoundly disgusting. The same disgust I have for what Chelsea did in the CL.
Now if you call me fanboy because you think i'm trying to teach football or push my ideas like they were coming from the Holy Bible, you got it wrong. English isnt my first language so maybe my sentences carry some meanings that are hidden to me but not to you, so in that case I'm sorry. But in most of my messages I just try to defend my opinions (subjective) on what I THINK is true or untrue. Like Chelsea being 'magnificent' or Barcelona receiving help from the UEFA...
I never called you a fanboy, which makes ti rather funny that you say that I "Read what pleases me".
Past that, it's perfectly fine to say that a team plays scrappy (or ugly or whatever you want). The problem is trying to insinuate that in a two-legged semifinal with no underhanded tactics and no blown ref calls swaying the game one way or another that Chelsea didn't deserve to win. Yes, they played a very scrappy style, but at the end of the day, they deserved the trophy.
Also, attempts =/= awesome play. You need to convert those attempts, both to on the goal and actually in the net.
Sure but my point is not only they played ugly, but they didnt play good either! They were ultra realistic offensively, so on this part they were perfect, but defensively they conceded a lot + conceded 2 penalties (both missed), a red card (defensive mistake), and several shots on the post. So you cannot say they played their strategy really good, they were extremely lucky that both Barca and Bayern missed all their attempts... I dont like the word 'deserve' because its always subjective. With my definition of 'deserve', Chelsea didn't deserve to win. I agree with you that with the purely objective definition of 'deserve', when you win something without unjust calls (like you said), you deserve to win, period.
The fanboy reference was not for you. My 'you' was for the people who answered my message after you. I'm writing on my phone, I cannot quote multiple messages and as said before, my english might not be clear enough to indicate exactly what I want to say...
On March 14 2013 14:04 ZapRoffo wrote: Semis for the concacaf champions league are actually pretty compelling: Monterrey vs. LA Galaxy and Seattle Sounders vs. Santos Laguna, two big US vs. Mexico matches. Monterrey looks sort of suspect but Santos is I think the strongest in the competition. Predicting Galaxy vs. Santos final.
Why are the finals a two-legged series and not just one game? That's just weird :x
On March 14 2013 14:39 WillyWanker wrote: Sure but my point is not only they played ugly, but they didnt play good either! They were ultra realistic offensively, so on this part they were perfect, but defensively they conceded a lot + conceded 2 penalties (both missed), a red card (defensive mistake), and several shots on the post. So you cannot say they played their strategy really good, they were extremely lucky that both Barca and Bayern missed all their attempts... I dont like the word 'deserve' because its always subjective. With my definition of 'deserve', Chelsea didn't deserve to win. I agree with you that with the purely objective definition of 'deserve', when you win something without unjust calls (like you said), you deserve to win, period.
The fanboy reference was not for you. My 'you' was for the people who answered my message after you. I'm writing on my phone, I cannot quote multiple messages and as said before, my english might not be clear enough to indicate exactly what I want to say...
I agree to some extent. Football is a low point game - only a few goals happen per game - and is as such susceptible to statistical fluctuations. Teams can have way superior strategy and execution - which give them better odds to score - and still lose a single game to an inferior opponent quite easily.
Barca was such an impressive team over the last years because they could restrict even quality opponents to only a few chances per game, all the while creating many chances for themselves, increasing their chances to win to unbelievably high levels.
While Chelsea did do a good job in the last CL to lower the quality of their opponents chances, they were still rather fortunate that so few of the numerous attempts succeeded. All the while their own attempts succeeded way more often than one would expect, highlighted in the final when they scored after the single corner kick they managed to force in 120 minutes.
On March 14 2013 14:39 WillyWanker wrote: Sure but my point is not only they played ugly, but they didnt play good either! They were ultra realistic offensively, so on this part they were perfect, but defensively they conceded a lot + conceded 2 penalties (both missed), a red card (defensive mistake), and several shots on the post. So you cannot say they played their strategy really good, they were extremely lucky that both Barca and Bayern missed all their attempts... I dont like the word 'deserve' because its always subjective. With my definition of 'deserve', Chelsea didn't deserve to win. I agree with you that with the purely objective definition of 'deserve', when you win something without unjust calls (like you said), you deserve to win, period.
The fanboy reference was not for you. My 'you' was for the people who answered my message after you. I'm writing on my phone, I cannot quote multiple messages and as said before, my english might not be clear enough to indicate exactly what I want to say...
You cannot blame them for being lucky, you blame Barca for not taking their chances, to the degree Chelsea were superior no?
Letting Ramirez waltz through and going to sleep, is an obvious issue, they let an 18 year old do it to them again.
You cannot hedge for individual errors if you are Barca, but you cannot sit their and say that its ok because they like to leave their defenders one on one. There is an obvious flaw in the design and people try to exploit it. Being a superior team is not the be all of winning.
Sure they were let off, and in some ways you could even argue it was written in the stars that they were going to win, but then thats that.
If the other team is not going to punish your mistakes, then their execution of their style of play has obviously been inferior to yours.
Regardless you can spin it any way you want, the team that won deserved to win..
Oh I'm not blaming them for being lucky, but for playing that style from the 1st minute in Stamford Bridge (and possibly even in quarters and ro16, but I didn't look these games). And like I said, 'deserve' is a very subjective word. Everybody has its own definition of what is 'deserving' and what's not.
Barça scored 2 goals and managed to get a red card, and they believed the game was over. Focus mistake and bam one goal conceded because Chelsea, despite their ugly playstyle, still has some very talented players than can play with the ball in the feet. Ramires' finish was just exquisite to watch.
The flaw in Barcelona's playstyle is that they are taking high risks to score goals, so when the strikers are not efficient, the defense will pay it. Against Milan, they didn't have so many chances but they had their 'killer instinct' switched on. Against Chelsea, they only managed to score twice with 50+ attempts. And when we know Barcelona, we know these attempts aren't Ronaldo-50m distance-style shots...
My analysis of the duel Barca Chelsea is that we were totally inefficient in the 2 zones of the field that matter the most, and Chelsea won the lottery.
On March 14 2013 20:39 WillyWanker wrote: Oh I'm not blaming them for being lucky, but for playing that style from the 1st minute in Stamford Bridge (and possibly even in quarters and ro16, but I didn't look these games). And like I said, 'deserve' is a very subjective word. Everybody has its own definition of what is 'deserving' and what's not.
Barça scored 2 goals and managed to get a red card, and they believed the game was over. Focus mistake and bam one goal conceded because Chelsea, despite their ugly playstyle, still has some very talented players than can play with the ball in the feet. Ramires' finish was just exquisite to watch.
The flaw in Barcelona's playstyle is that they are taking high risks to score goals, so when the strikers are not efficient, the defense will pay it. Against Milan, they didn't have so many chances but they had their 'killer instinct' switched on. Against Chelsea, they only managed to score twice with 50+ attempts. And when we know Barcelona, we know these attempts aren't Ronaldo-50m distance-style shots...
My analysis of the duel Barca Chelsea is that we were totally inefficient in the 2 zones of the field that matter the most, and Chelsea won the lottery.
Then your taking credit away from Chelsea and saying Barca lost rather than Chelsea won.. thats not fair and you can call it a lottery, you can call it luck, you can call it whatever you please, but spare your disgust for someone who cares.
I think its ugly, I detest football played that way, but put yourself in a weaker teams shoes and say they shouldnt play defensively with a straight face. No one likes to be cut to ribbons without ever having a chance.
Also lets be very clear..
this "efficiancy" you saw against Milan, they didnt have very many chances and let me add that no manager, no team no player can hedge or account for Messi's first goal. and thats what blew the game open,
Are you going to bank on Messi doing that everytime ? Is that really a legit strat ? Granted he may well do it... but is it really fair to assume so. Messi was not efficient the other day. He was godlike, you dont design your team around Messi being godlike, its not prudent and doesnt make you a good team.
Also Barca relied on an 18 yr old hitting the post. As much dominance as Barca had over the game. They cracks are still there. So dont come here and tell me that everything is hunky dory with taking risks and the strikers being efficient. Its not.
A barca 3-4 years ago would create alot more chances and bury the game at half time. They arent as good this year and teams are getting better at playing them.
You cant leave your defenders one on one all the time, they will make mistakes.
On March 14 2013 20:39 WillyWanker wrote: Oh I'm not blaming them for being lucky, but for playing that style from the 1st minute in Stamford Bridge (and possibly even in quarters and ro16, but I didn't look these games). And like I said, 'deserve' is a very subjective word. Everybody has its own definition of what is 'deserving' and what's not.
Barça scored 2 goals and managed to get a red card, and they believed the game was over. Focus mistake and bam one goal conceded because Chelsea, despite their ugly playstyle, still has some very talented players than can play with the ball in the feet. Ramires' finish was just exquisite to watch.
The flaw in Barcelona's playstyle is that they are taking high risks to score goals, so when the strikers are not efficient, the defense will pay it. Against Milan, they didn't have so many chances but they had their 'killer instinct' switched on. Against Chelsea, they only managed to score twice with 50+ attempts. And when we know Barcelona, we know these attempts aren't Ronaldo-50m distance-style shots...
My analysis of the duel Barca Chelsea is that we were totally inefficient in the 2 zones of the field that matter the most, and Chelsea won the lottery.
Then your taking credit away from Chelsea and saying Barca lost rather than Chelsea won.. thats not fair and you can call it a lottery, you can call it luck, you can call it whatever you please, but spare your disgust for someone who cares.
I think its ugly, I detest football played that way, but put yourself in a weaker teams shoes and say they shouldnt play defensively with a straight face. No one likes to be cut to ribbons without ever having a chance.
Also lets be very clear..
this "efficiancy" you saw against Milan, they didnt have very many chances and let me add that no manager, no team no player can hedge or account for Messi's first goal. and thats what blew the game open,
Are you going to bank on Messi doing that everytime ? Is that really a legit strat ? Granted he may well do it... but is it really fair to assume so. Messi was not efficient the other day. He was godlike, you dont design your team around Messi being godlike, its not prudent and doesnt make you a good team.
Also Barca relied on an 18 yr old hitting the post. As much dominance as Barca had over the game. They cracks are still there. So dont come here and tell me that everything is hunky dory with taking risks and the strikers being efficient. Its not.
A barca 3-4 years ago would create alot more chances and bury the game at half time. They arent as good this year and teams are getting better at playing them.
You cant leave your defenders one on one all the time, they will make mistakes.
Isn't that the point of a forum? Sharing opinions on different matters? Or maybe I should be sweet, nice and say everything is beautiful, the world is a happy place etc...? At the start of this conversation, I quoted the Chelsea supporter who claimed they were 'magnificent' last year. To that I answered that IN MY FUCKING OPINION, only Chelsea fans saw that as a 'magnificent' game, and the rest of the world found it either disgusting or just efficient and lucky. You can not share my opinion, but you are not to say whether or not I have the right to publish my opinon on this very forum.
For the 2nd part, where did I say that Barca was playing godlike all the time? 4-0 is an extraordinary result in CL, and that called for an extraordinary game with extraordinary players. I'm in most cases happy with a 1-0 win if it gives us the qualification or the 3 points, I'm not asking Messi to put Maradona-like goals every week, I leave that to the spanish journalists who love to judge players/teams only from the last game played.
Willywanker, magnificent may have been an overstatement. It wasn't a magnificent performance but it was a magnificent result, and, to an extent, Lampard's pass and Ramires' goal were both magnificent.
Just try to put any team in the world in this position:
2-1 down on aggregate. 0/4 centre backs on the field. 10 men in your team. In the home stadium of your opponent. Opponent is widely regarded as the best side in the world right now.
Explain how managing to come out of that position is not incredible, magnificent, wonderful, the ultimate houdini act. ETC.
If any team did that to Barcelona that night, I would stand up and applaud the impossible. JUst like I was ready to stand up and applaud Arsenal if they managed the 3-0 against Bayern.
Yeah but again, my point is, they played defensively all game due to certain circumstances (the opponent is a better team, we are 10, we have no centre backs, etc...) but still didn't manage to contain the many attempts from Barcelona. Also, I'm not only talking about the 2nd game, where they had a reason to turtle (1-0 from first leg). The first leg was already disgusting (TO ME) when it started. 0-0 Stamford Bridge and already wasting time, 10 in the box, etc... They did the exact same thing AGAINST BAYERN, with 11 players, with centre backs, and without any score favouring Bayern.
So yeah, taking the Corida example, at the end the Bull was still alive, but not (or at least not only) because he was really that skilled at avoiding the swords, but more because the Matador was drunk or high and couldn't find his way to the kill shot... At the end the spectators will maybe applaud the Bull (your opinion), but I would have booed the Matador...
In the Corrida example, we are talking about a bull with the heart of 10 bulls, the king of warrior bulls, managing to stay alive despite being slashed hundreds of times, streaming blood from every direction, a hostile crowd baying for his ultimate demise...but still able to take aim through his blurred vision and gore the matador who has (as you say) been distracted by the ease at which he is dismantling the bull. Lofting him high above his head as he ragdolls the pathetic carcass back and forth.
Spraying offal on his pristine kit, smattering the crowd with entrails of their beloved hero. Rearing up on his hind legs and bellowing a mighty battle cry, he rampages through the stadium, slaughtering the hubristic throng of supporters with righteous fury.
Against all odds, the wounded but victorious bull finally makes his escape into broad daylight. Whence he is airlifted by a plane driven by a mighty british bulldog and british lion back to his resting place.
Oh yeah, and this music is playing in the background:
interspersed with the occasional Gary Neville orgasm. And skip to 1:55 for when Torres scored.
As entertaining as it was, I don't see how it is applicable here, sure the bull was of the bravest kind, but the crowd in the arena would be the entire television spectator pool, not only the Camp Nou. And if you have watched some Corridas, if the Matador is not good during the show, the crowd will of course salute the performance of the bull, but most likely will destroy the Matador both in the arena but also in the next morning's newspapers.
Anyway, I don't see an end for this discussion, and as I am currently playing Civilization 5, I propose a Pact of Non-Agression for 25 turns, what do you say?
edit: I found another example but this time in a real sport where there is almost no place for the 'beauty' of the performance, and where only the result counts. Usain Bolt, World Championship in 2011 (I think). False start, he get disqualified. He was the favourite and would most likely have won the race but he failed. The 'Chelsea turtle strat' of this example would be the pressure on his shoulders. In the end Blake won, people saluted the performance, but nobody really cared because they knew that if Bolt hadn't fucked up he would have won. In the newspapers you could see: 'Bolt lost', not 'Blake won'. It's a little stretched but it illustrate my opinion pretty well.
Isn't that the point of a forum? Sharing opinions on different matters? Or maybe I should be sweet, nice and say everything is beautiful, the world is a happy place etc...? At the start of this conversation, I quoted the Chelsea supporter who claimed they were 'magnificent' last year. To that I answered that IN MY FUCKING OPINION, only Chelsea fans saw that as a 'magnificent' game, and the rest of the world found it either disgusting or just efficient and lucky. You can not share my opinion, but you are not to say whether or not I have the right to publish my opinon on this very forum.
Your free to have an opinion but stop trying to pass it off like the rest of the world overwhelmingly believes that Barca were hard done by. Express your opinion is much as you like but then make a cogent arguement,
I can have an opinion that I can bend the ball better than Beckham, and dribble better than Messi. opinions need to be substantial for people to give a shit.
Also that Usain Bolt example is stupid. Usain Bolt doesnt take pressure and a 100m dash you dont affect the others performance directly. And thats just to name a couple of inconsistencies.
Isn't that the point of a forum? Sharing opinions on different matters? Or maybe I should be sweet, nice and say everything is beautiful, the world is a happy place etc...? At the start of this conversation, I quoted the Chelsea supporter who claimed they were 'magnificent' last year. To that I answered that IN MY FUCKING OPINION, only Chelsea fans saw that as a 'magnificent' game, and the rest of the world found it either disgusting or just efficient and lucky. You can not share my opinion, but you are not to say whether or not I have the right to publish my opinon on this very forum.
Your free to have an opinion but stop trying to pass it off like the rest of the world overwhelmingly believes that Barca were hard done by. Express your opinion is much as you like but then make a cogent arguement, I can have an opinion that I can bend the ball better than Beckham, and dribble better than Messi. opinions need to be substantial for people to give a shit.
Also that Usain Bolt example is stupid. Usain Bolt doesnt take pressure and a 100m dash you dont affect the others performance directly. And thats just to name a couple of inconsistencies.
Feel free to think whatever you like bro, no hard feelings. It's my opinion that Barça lost the game (and Bayern too) more than Chelsea won, if you don't agree, well, I couldn't care less. Now your calling my example stupid, I find it perfect. The race was won by Blake, but everybody thought that Bolt lost it. Yeah sure Bolt doesn't take pressure, he's like God, nothing hits him, but eeeeeeh he made a false start JUST after everybody started criticizing him in the newspapers and making Blake a serious contender. Well snap, what a coincidence. Or maybe you think the course was rigged by the UEFA?
It's funny that when people are saying that 'yeah Barca won 4-0 but Milan weren't that good' you say nothing, and when I say 'Chelsea qualified, but Barca weren't that good', it doesn't work x)
edit number 12: I'm really pissed you consider my opinion to be totally empty of any argument. I repeated countless times, that Chelsea didn't even succeed in their strategy, they succeeded in the result, but their strategy didn't bring what it should have brought. If Messi would have scored this penalty, everybody would have said 'Chelsea tried to turtle and failed miserably'. How easy it is to comment on results without even talking about the content of the game...
I respect far more Arsenal than Chelsea. Poor old gunners try to play beautiful football, sure now they are in a state that they can lose to anyone, but they don't resort to changing their style into something that's horrible to watch.
I'm not a supporter of Arsenal, so I don't know if their fans like that approach, but as a football viewer I love their resilience.
It's not like we dismiss last years incident as a fluke. I mean I'm greek, I was terribly happy when we won the euro the way we did. But let's call it as we see it, shall we? I don't think anyone else besides greeks/underdog supporters was moaning from joy with the football we played. It's the same with chelsea.
We in the UK love an underdog. I was cheering for Greece without a shadow of a doubt. It is quite an obvious difference between the British and the Europeans though I will admit that. It seems like the US enjoy underdogs too. Doesn't matter how they win, for me it's always best when underdogs win .
Goalkeepers: Ben Foster , Joe Hart, Fraser Forster.
Defenders: Leighton Baines, Gary Cahill, Ashley Cole, Michael Dawson, Rio Ferdinand , Glen Johnson, Chris Smalling, Kyle Walker.
Midfielders: Michael Carrick, Tom Cleverley, Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard, Aaron Lennon, James Milner, Leon Osman, Scott Parker , Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Theo Walcott, Ashley Young.
Forwards: Jermain Defoe, Wayne Rooney, Daniel Sturridge, Daniel Welbeck.
On March 14 2013 23:48 Steveling wrote: I respect far more Arsenal than Chelsea. Poor old gunners try to play beautiful football, sure now they are in a state that they can lose to anyone, but they don't resort to changing their style into something that's horrible to watch.
I'm not a supporter of Arsenal, so I don't know if their fans like that approach, but as a football viewer I love their resilience.
That's because we don't sack our manager when we have a bad three months
Isn't that the point of a forum? Sharing opinions on different matters? Or maybe I should be sweet, nice and say everything is beautiful, the world is a happy place etc...? At the start of this conversation, I quoted the Chelsea supporter who claimed they were 'magnificent' last year. To that I answered that IN MY FUCKING OPINION, only Chelsea fans saw that as a 'magnificent' game, and the rest of the world found it either disgusting or just efficient and lucky. You can not share my opinion, but you are not to say whether or not I have the right to publish my opinon on this very forum.
Your free to have an opinion but stop trying to pass it off like the rest of the world overwhelmingly believes that Barca were hard done by. Express your opinion is much as you like but then make a cogent arguement, I can have an opinion that I can bend the ball better than Beckham, and dribble better than Messi. opinions need to be substantial for people to give a shit.
Also that Usain Bolt example is stupid. Usain Bolt doesnt take pressure and a 100m dash you dont affect the others performance directly. And thats just to name a couple of inconsistencies.
Feel free to think whatever you like bro, no hard feelings. It's my opinion that Barça lost the game (and Bayern too) more than Chelsea won, if you don't agree, well, I couldn't care less. Now your calling my example stupid, I find it perfect. The race was won by Blake, but everybody thought that Bolt lost it. Yeah sure Bolt doesn't take pressure, he's like God, nothing hits him, but eeeeeeh he made a false start JUST after everybody started criticizing him in the newspapers and making Blake a serious contender. Well snap, what a coincidence. Or maybe you think the course was rigged by the UEFA?
It's funny that when people are saying that 'yeah Barca won 4-0 but Milan weren't that good' you say nothing, and when I say 'Chelsea qualified, but Barca weren't that good', it doesn't work x)
edit number 12: I'm really pissed you consider my opinion to be totally empty of any argument. I repeated countless times, that Chelsea didn't even succeed in their strategy, they succeeded in the result, but their strategy didn't bring what it should have brought. If Messi would have scored this penalty, everybody would have said 'Chelsea tried to turtle and failed miserably'. How easy it is to comment on results without even talking about the content of the game...
You can argue about strategy's but you cant argue about the result. The result is what matters.
The media's job is to criticize. Fixing a false start is alot easier than fundamental flaws in your playstyle that are etched into your brain. The causes for concern are not even remotely similar.
On March 14 2013 21:18 WillyWanker wrote: Yeah but again, my point is, they played defensively all game due to certain circumstances (the opponent is a better team, we are 10, we have no centre backs, etc...) but still didn't manage to contain the many attempts from Barcelona. Also, I'm not only talking about the 2nd game, where they had a reason to turtle (1-0 from first leg). The first leg was already disgusting (TO ME) when it started. 0-0 Stamford Bridge and already wasting time, 10 in the box, etc... They did the exact same thing AGAINST BAYERN, with 11 players, with centre backs, and without any score favouring Bayern.
So yeah, taking the Corida example, at the end the Bull was still alive, but not (or at least not only) because he was really that skilled at avoiding the swords, but more because the Matador was drunk or high and couldn't find his way to the kill shot... At the end the spectators will maybe applaud the Bull (your opinion), but I would have booed the Matador...
So you keep talking about chances, but how many of those were blocked or saved? How many completely missed the goal? Defense isn't just about denying chances.
On March 15 2013 02:57 sc4k wrote: We in the UK love an underdog. I was cheering for Greece without a shadow of a doubt. It is quite an obvious difference between the British and the Europeans though I will admit that. It seems like the US enjoy underdogs too. Doesn't matter how they win, for me it's always best when underdogs win .
pretty sure that has nothing to do with cheering for an underdog but more with "I dont want other strong countries get titles my country didnt get"
EPT
and as said before, my english might not be clear enough to indicate exactly what I want to say...
/clap for the nice paragraphs!
.
