Chelsea vs. Barca Thread (28-Apr-09)

[acb]

what's next Pep? .... "playing in our away colours make us uncomfortable" ??
He lucky they didn't get 3 yellows because Dani Alves was acting like if somebody put cow itch in he jockstrap

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/29042009/3/barcelona-slam-chelsea-tactics-draw.html

Barcelona slam Chelsea tactics after draw
Wed 29 Apr, 02:44 PM

BARCELONA (AFP) - Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola reacted angrily at what he saw as the referee's leniency towards English side Chelsea's physical approach in their 0-0 Champions League semi-final first leg match.

Chelsea went away with mission accomplished after they stood firm against a barrage from Barcelona at the Camp Nou and become the first side this season in the competition to stop Barca from scoring at home.

As expected Barca took the game to Chelsea and enjoyed the vast majority of the possession but they were unable to find a way through to goal for the first time at home this season in the competition.

Petr Cech made a couple of important blocks from Samuel Eto'o and substitute Alexandr Hleb but too often they were restricted to strikes from distance.

"It is difficult to play against a team which doesn't want to play football," stormed 37-year-old Guardiola, who has worked wonders with the side since replacing the sacked Frank Rijkaard for this season.

"It was a game in which Chelsea had five defenders and the ball was always Cech to (Didier) Drogba and then backwards and forwards again.

"The result was fair, though, because neither side scored but there is something wrong when we ended up with the same number of yellow cards as they did and yet they committed 20 fouls compared to seven," added the former Barcelona and Spain playmaker.

Guardiola, who cleared out stars such as Deco and Ronaldinho last summer, believed that German star Michael Ballack was fortunate to have remained on the pitch.

"Chelsea played very physically and I thought it was scandalous that (Michael) Ballack did not receive a second yellow card for a foul on (Andres) Iniesta on the edge of the area," said Guardiola.

"That is something you would expect in any normal game during the season and it is these small details which did not go our way which will end up deciding the tie.

"Referees need to take an overall look at games and if that had happened then he would have seen that we were not the team which was fouling and we were looking to play football.

"Anyone looking at the match will know there was only one team looking to attack, we were always looking for a goal but Chelsea are a good side who have been together for a long time and won trophies.

"We now have to go to Stamford Bridge, play the football we always play and try and win."

The Barca players were similarly forthright with Xavi Hernandez complaining: "so that is what the English call fair play," while Toure Yaya also hit out at Chelsea's tackling.

"It was a difficult game and some of their tackles were outrageous while we would just touch a player and there would be a free-kick or a booking. We now have to go there (Stamford Bridge) and get a win, the tie is still not decided," said Toure, who was one of those booked.

Barca were also dealt a blow with the news that centre-half Rafa Marquez is set to miss the rest of the season after picking up what appears to be a serious knee injury. His replacement Carles Puyol will also be absent from the return leg through suspension after accumulating his third yellow card.

Eto'o, who it has been denied is subject to a 40million pound bid from Manchester City, said that there was hope for Barcelona as playing at home Chelsea will now have to come out and attack.

"We had all the chances," said the Cameroon marksman.

"I would imagine they won't be able to play in the second leg like they did tonight by sitting back in their half.

"We will see how they are going to approach it. We will try and score the goal that we need to get us to the final."

Chelsea coach Guus Hiddink, though, praised the character of his players for the way they stood firm and prevented Barca's star-studded forward line from scoring.

"This was a good result but the tie is not decided yet and we have another very hard game ahead of us. It was not an easy match to play and we will have to improve in some areas for the next game but overall I am happy as we defended very well," said Hiddink, who won the what was then the European Cup as coach of PSV Eindhoven in 1988.

"Barca keep the ball very well and so it meant we had to defend a lot but we defended very well and I have to praise (John) Terry for his courage. They put us under a lot of pressure but we never yielded and we managed to neutralise the threat from (Lionel) Messi."

Chelsea skipper Terry conceded that Barcelona had had the majority of the chances but was delighted to have come away with the draw.

"We stayed very tight at the back," said Terry, whose missed penalty in last year's final handed victory to Manchester United.

"It was a fantastic performance and to not concede a goal is delightful. Hopefully going back to the Bridge we can use that to our advantage."

[kicker]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

[elan]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

[palos]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Exforkinzactly!

BITCH football by wannabe "big side" Chelflee.  No if's, and's or but's about it. 

[Bakes]

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Fella and you have the nerve to accuse me of being biased? lol

[Mango Chow!]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

 


 WHERE WAS ALL THIS OUTCRY WHEN MANU DID THE EXACT SAME THING AGAINST AN EVEN LESSER BARCA SIDE LAST YEAR FROM AN EVEN BETTER POSITION THAN CHELSEA IS IN THIS YEAR?

[kicker]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Brought the game into disrepute?

If you disagree with what I said, then go ahead and tell me why, but don't put words in my mouth then play like you askin' me some irrelevant question that I should answer.

[Filho]

90 minutes still to play. too much is being made of the tactics used in the first 90 minutes. regardless of how everyone feels about the different styles of play..i believe that each team is a very pragmatic, proessional outfit and neither is out to entertain for entertainment's sake. Barca's more attractive style is what they consider the best way to win - the end goal. if they didn't think so, they would not play that way. The aesthetics of their game is a nice by-product of a philosophy that is still intended to win trophies first and foremost. Chelsea did what they had to do over 90 minutes.

Let's wait and see how the 2nd 90 minutes goes. Only after that will you get the full picture of what each team is capable of. Then the praise and criticism can begin. real judgement passing and we are still to see what Barca does away from home and what Chelsea does at home...

Anyway..I trying to study de Superclasico and I still drawn to this thread. Presha!

Go BARCA!

[acb]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Kicker, I don't think the performancec comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority when Barca was/ is being crowned as the best team on the planet. Chelsea was the underdog yesterday, and regardless of whom Barca played in the semis - they would have been favoured to win. No-one believed Chelsea could get a result at Camp Nou EXCEPT for Chelsea fans, and they were written off as inferior before the game. It's a good thing the game was played, because now the questions are being asked whether the Barca team is well-tempered, disciplined or athletically superior to outwit Chelsea.

Yesterday's showcase was epitomized from the outset by expectations but Chelsea went in with a game plan, and they executed. Barca went in with a game plan and could not execute.

I also get what you're saying about winning is everything versus joga bonito .... but it is the results that matter, not necessarily how you come to those results that will measure the accomplishments of the team. Take for example, the Arsenal team that we will see today. They currently play the most aesthetically pleasing brand of football in the EPL, but what recent silverware do they have to show for that?

Much has also been made about the Chelsea payroll as though Chelsea is the only side with a multi-million dollar payroll that has approached Barca with a defensive mindset. Well the payroll was well worth it, because regardless of their formation or tactics, the millionaires earned their salaries and a bonus last evening because they followed instructions and stuck to what they were told to do. They sat back and let Barca overpass, while they surged forward on the counter-attack.

Chelsea will undoubtedly be more attacking at Stamford Bridge, and if Chelsea scores first, expect the superior talent at Barca to panic, quake and complain alot more - because they ran into a impermeable wall in Camp Nou, and they know it will be replicated 10-fold at The Bridge if Chelsea are one up.

[elan]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Brought the game into disrepute?

If you disagree with what I said, then go ahead and tell me why, but don't put words in my mouth then play like you askin' me some irrelevant question that I should answer.

How the question irrelevant? Just say you don't want to answer. YOu make some general comments and I just ask you for something more specific as to why you (the purist) felt that the tactic Chelsea employed was "cheating" or inferior.

[kicker]

WHERE WAS ALL THIS OUTCRY WHEN MANU DID THE EXACT SAME THING AGAINST AN EVEN LESSER BARCA SIDE LAST YEAR FROM AN EVEN BETTER POSITION THAN CHELSEA IS IN THIS YEAR?

Firstly I dunno what outcry you're talking about- just an observation...no need to be so dramatic (yes and that means also unlocking yuh caps key  ).

Secondly I actually didn't watch the 1st leg of the Man U - Barca semi last year...the score got leaked to me before I could watch so I didn't bother....The return leg that I watched wasn't really comparable to last nights game in my opinion- Man U was on the back foot alot because they scored early, and were naturally pressed for long periods of the game (that's typical)...but it didn't look like a game where they intended to park the bus and frustrate from the opening minute.

Thirdly I'm not sure if it matters that Man U employed a similar approach.  It doesn't change a thing, nor my opinion.  I used Chelsea as the example naturally because it's the most recent case.  A wounded, undermanned and in turmoil Real Madrid went to the Camp Nou earlier this season and had to absorb tons of pressure too...it was clear that they employed a reasonably conservative strategy- they lost and it was unanimous that they were clearly outclassed (even their ex-coach admitted it before the game) so in the end the point was moot...In Chelsea's case I think it was a bit different.  Unless they were genuinely outclassed (which I don't agree with, and I'm sure every Chelsea fan on here would deny) I would have liked to see them open up a bit more- I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Mango Chow!]

90 minutes still to play. too much is being made of the tactics used in the first 90 minutes. regardless of how everyone feels about the different styles of play..i believe that each team is a very pragmatic, proessional outfit and neither is out to entertain for entertainment's sake. Barca's more attractive style is what they consider the best way to win - the end goal. if they didn't think so, they would not play that way. The aesthetics of their game is a nice by-product of a philosophy that is still intended to win trophies first and foremost. Chelsea did what they had to do over 90 minutes.

Let's wait and see how the 2nd 90 minutes goes. Only after that will you get the full picture of what each team is capable of. Then the praise and criticism can begin. real judgement passing and we are still to see what Barca does away from home and what Chelsea does at home...

Anyway..I trying to study de Superclasico and I still drawn to this thread. Presha!

Go BARCA!

            The superclasico just might have more of an effect on Barca's CL aspirations than on the Liga title.  The timing couldn't have been worse as far as pressure for Barca is concerned. 

WHERE WAS ALL THIS OUTCRY WHEN MANU DID THE EXACT SAME THING AGAINST AN EVEN LESSER BARCA SIDE LAST YEAR FROM AN EVEN BETTER POSITION THAN CHELSEA IS IN THIS YEAR?

Firstly I dunno what outcry you're talking about- just an observation...no need to be so dramatic (yes and that means also unlocking yuh caps key  ).

Secondly I actually didn't watch the 1st leg of the Man U - Barca semi last year...the score got leaked to me before I could watch so I didn't bother....The return leg that I watched wasn't really comparable to last nights game in my opinion- Man U was on the back foot alot because they scored early, and were naturally pressed for long periods of the game (that's typical)...but it didn't look like a game where they intended to park the bus and frustrate from the opening minute.

Thirdly I'm not sure if it matters that Man U employed a similar approach.  It doesn't change a thing, nor my opinion.  I used Chelsea as the example naturally because it's the most recent case.  A wounded, undermanned and in turmoil Real Madrid went to the Camp Nou earlier this season and had to absorb tons of pressure too...it was clear that they employed a reasonably conservative strategy- they lost and it was unanimous that they were clearly outclassed (even their ex-coach admitted it before the game) so in the end the point was moot...In Chelsea's case I think it was a bit different.  Unless they were genuinely outclassed (which I don't agree with, and I'm sure every Chelsea fan on here would deny) I would have liked to see them open up a bit more- I don't see what all the fuss is about.

   Well it was the game that you missed where manu had "parked the bus" when Barca weren't at full strength and they (manu) didn't look any different from how Chelsea looked last night.  I, too, would have preferred to see Chelsea play a more open, free-flowing game (especially since I don't care either way.....well, I DO care who wins this one....) but I just think that any team that decidedly sits back and absorbs pressure and hope for a counter-attack is basically admitting inferiority.   

.....as far as the caps is concerned, ah was too lazy to go back and change de whole ting so ah jes change the first letters from lower case, if yuh ketch meh drift.   

[Filho]

Kicker, I don't think the performancec comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority when Barca was/ is being crowned as the best team on the planet.


Barca has won nothing yet. They're gaining plaudits for their style of play, not actual superiority. That comes from results at the tail end of the season.


Chelsea was the underdog yesterday, and regardless of whom Barca played in the semis - they would have been favoured to win. No-one believed Chelsea could get a result at Camp Nou EXCEPT for Chelsea fans, and they were written off as inferior before the game.

Except for the part about Barca being favorites..that's a huge exaggeration. But that's normal for the underdog. It amkes a positive result even sweeter.

It's a good thing the game was played, because now the questions are being asked whether the Barca team is well-tempered, disciplined or athletically superior to outwit Chelsea.

Yesterday's showcase was epitomized from the outset by expectations but Chelsea went in with a game plan, and they executed. Barca went in with a game plan and could not execute.

I think for some people, the question is...why that plan? for others, the result speaks for itself

I also get what you're saying about winning is everything versus joga bonito .... but it is the results that matter, not necessarily how you come to those results that will measure the accomplishments of the team.

I think that's exactly what kicker was saying in the beginning. And exactly why it's ridiculous to use the hype of Barca being 'the best team in the world' as a reason for Chelsea being such rank outsiders. barca isn't even certaint to win la Liga

Take for example, the Arsenal team that we will see today. They currently play the most aesthetically pleasing brand of football in the EPL, but what recent silverware do they have to show for that?

Much has also been made about the Chelsea payroll as though Chelsea is the only side with a multi-million dollar payroll that has approached Barca with a defensive mindset. Well the payroll was well worth it, because regardless of their formation or tactics, the millionaires earned their salaries and a bonus last evening because they followed instructions and stuck to what they were told to do. They sat back and let Barca overpass, while they surged forward on the counter-attack.

Chelsea will undoubtedly be more attacking at Stamford Bridge, and if Chelsea scores first, expect the superior talent at Barca to panic, quake and complain alot more - because they ran into a impermeable wall in Camp Nou, and they know it will be replicated 10-fold at The Bridge if Chelsea are one up.

looking forward to the 2nd leg

[elan]

Nah Chelsea eh do that bad. United had line/walls, Chelsea had group bid difference.

You serious....they playing a nice game. Everyone saying defensive, but it's not parking the bus. They giving the ball back to Barca and alet them play. Chelsea is picking their time in going forward.

What a shyte call on Ballack.

This is why nobody could take you serious when yuh talk about being objective. Last Year you was the chief in condemning United when barcelona had all the ball. Now Chelsea play a game where they actually have fewer chances and commit more fouls than United and it is suddenly a different ball game.

I agree that big teams don't play that way.

However, Chelsea defensive game was in the middle of the field not in the defensive end really. Chelsea happy in letting Barcelona have the ball why did they not make Chelsea pay for that? Chlesea still had the best chance of the game.

You really think Chelsea could not go at Barcelona? Look from the 30 minute in the 1st and the 75" in the 2nd and see the difference and ability in Chelsea being able to take the game to Barcelona.

Barcelona for their ability should have palyed faster, they were to methodical in their build up. Almost everyting they did you could see it coming.

Say what, we will see at Stamford Bridge.

And this is a classic.

Best chance? Yeah right. But even if you going with that delusion, last year United had a penalty, yuh can’t get a better chance than that yet they didn’t get no credit from you.

If Chelsea could go toe to toe with Barcelona, why didn’t they?
Last year yuh was using the fact that three Barca players had Tevez running ina  circle by the corner flag as an example of Barcelona's superior play. Now intricate passing and ball possession is a problem for Barcelona.

Serious question yuh does really believe what yuh does be talking? You really believe that what Chelsea play was in any way better then what United play last year?

Look how simple you are in your understanding of tactics. If you or anyone could watch what Chelsea do and directly compare it to Man UNited, have to be basic in football. Why no one coming down on big Barcelona in not knowing how to adapt to different teams. So every team have to play a certaing way for Barcelona to show what they have? Come on grow up.

I will educate you here a little.

Man United had 2 major lines of confrontation with no outlet vs Barcelona a year ago. They were on the back foot and absorbing pressure.

Chelsea on the other hand had one major line of confrontation that being the back 4. The midfield was used to stifle play down the middle, not be reactive and absorb pressure. Chelsea midfield was pro active in forcing Barcelona wide to what supposed to be their strong points. However, Barcelona could not use the flanks effectively for a number of reason. Messi and Henry start points were to deep, the full back got good cover from the center backs thus minimizing the space behind the fullback, crossing the ball would have been to Chelsea adavntage and Chelsea mids and defenders kept runner from making proper runs into the box.

Now again Man United upon winning the ball had little or no options a year ago. Chelsea had various outlets on winning the ball. The  thing that confusing you all into thinking that it was all defensive was that they really had no reason to use the outlets much. Drogba remained high and mobile keeping the Barcelona defense in place, and have them unsure about joining the attack. This also created less option for Barcelopna in the middle of the field as their support fron the back was limited. Malouda and Essien was also outlets on the side, therefore Barcelona had to be very careful about how they push on.

Chelsea deployment on the field was in such a manner that if needed they could have stepped up their game and press Barcelona back (like if they went down a goal, which never happened). The last 15 minutes in each half showed how easily Chelsea could have gotten forward. They (Chelsea) was just happy to let Barcelona have the ball, but won the ball in specific positions and turn them back. This is not the same as man UNited defending deep inside their half with no distinct option to go forward whenever they wanted.

So Mr.  JDB no one have to take me serious on this board cause as soon as the thread get to indepth tactics analysis men does start cussing, calling people names or just abandon the thread. You all making all these general tactical observation but not looking at the game within the game. The little nuances, the tweaks that seperate a set of tactics from another.

What's even better, Barcelona had their best on the field and could not figure it out. Tactically in terms of results Barcelona got outplayed, and outcoached.

[kicker]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Brought the game into disrepute?

If you disagree with what I said, then go ahead and tell me why, but don't put words in my mouth then play like you askin' me some irrelevant question that I should answer.

How the question irrelevant? Just say you don't want to answer. YOu make some general comments and I just ask you for something more specific as to why you (the purist) felt that the tactic Chelsea employed was "cheating" or inferior.

There you go again putting words in my mouth.  First yuh come with disrepute...lol...Now cheating and now inferior tactics.  I never said they employed inferior tactics..nor said anything about cheating.  I said that such tactics in my opinion take away from the "pureness" of the game (in a manner of speaking of course)- and such a performance comes off like meaning in my opinion it appears to be an admission of inferiority (I know they're not admitting such- I even started by saying that I understand the rationale behind the tactical approach- which it clearly was)..I'm saying on it's face, it comes off that way.  

I'm not sure what really needs explaining there...or why I need to review the specifics of the game to try and prove anything- If you saw the game you'd know exactly what I'm talking about even if you don't agree....and quite frankly I don't really care that much.

[elan]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Brought the game into disrepute?

If you disagree with what I said, then go ahead and tell me why, but don't put words in my mouth then play like you askin' me some irrelevant question that I should answer.

How the question irrelevant? Just say you don't want to answer. YOu make some general comments and I just ask you for something more specific as to why you (the purist) felt that the tactic Chelsea employed was "cheating" or inferior.

There you go again putting words in my mouth.  First yuh come with disrepute...lol...Now cheating and now inferior tactics.  I never said they employed inferior tactics..nor said anything about cheating.  I said that such tactics in my opinion take away from the "pureness" of the game (in a manner of speaking of course)- and such a performance comes off like meaning in my opinion it appears to be an admission of inferiority (I know they're not admitting such- I even started by saying that I understand the rationale behind the tactical approach- which it clearly was)..I'm saying on it's face, it comes off that way.  

I'm not sure what really needs explaining there...or why I need to review the specifics of the game to try and prove anything- If you saw the game you'd know exactly what I'm talking about even if you don't agree....and quite frankly I don't really care that much.

Okay, okay....I putting words in yuh mouth.

[Mango Chow!]

Kind of agree with Pep.

I understand the school of thought that football is all about winning, and you therefore need to employ all your resources in a manner that gives you the best shot at winning- and hence the tactical aspect of the game gains alot of importance as seen yesterday...

But I'm more from the purist school and Chelsea's approach to the game took away from the pureness of it, and I think it's kinda lame- I understand if you're Nobody F.C. with a bunch of unskilled players who lack quality, and the only way you could imagine to grind out a result is to park the bus, and hope for rare openings & mistakes...but when you're a so-called big side like Chelsea with a multi-million dollar roster of skilled professional football stars boasting to be a top 4 team in what is supposed to be the dominant league in Europe, a performance like that comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority.

Chelsea might go on to win the 2 legged tie, but unless they play Barca off the park in the next leg, if they do get the favorable result at the bridge, I'd be hard pressed to contend that the better team won.

Specifically, tell me how Chelsea played that brought the game into disrepute?

Brought the game into disrepute?

If you disagree with what I said, then go ahead and tell me why, but don't put words in my mouth then play like you askin' me some irrelevant question that I should answer.

How the question irrelevant? Just say you don't want to answer. YOu make some general comments and I just ask you for something more specific as to why you (the purist) felt that the tactic Chelsea employed was "cheating" or inferior.

There you go again putting words in my mouth.  First yuh come with disrepute...lol...Now cheating and now inferior tactics.  I never said they employed inferior tactics..nor said anything about cheating.  I said that such tactics in my opinion take away from the "pureness" of the game (in a manner of speaking of course)- and such a performance comes off like meaning in my opinion it appears to be an admission of inferiority (I know they're not admitting such- I even started by saying that I understand the rationale behind the tactical approach- which it clearly was)..I'm saying on it's face, it comes off that way.  

I'm not sure what really needs explaining there...or why I need to review the specifics of the game to try and prove anything- If you saw the game you'd know exactly what I'm talking about even if you don't agree....and quite frankly I don't really care that much.

   I really don't think it only "comes off" as an admission of inferiority, Boss.  It is one.

[kicker]

.....as far as the caps is concerned, ah was too lazy to go back and change de whole ting so ah jes change the first letters from lower case, if yuh ketch meh drift.   

lol  no scene...

[FF]

Kicker stop bleddy taking Barca side in anything or bigging dem up in any kinda roundabout way for meh please... 

Classico dis weekend.... so dey is ultimate sh!t for de time being!1

Level toots.... Crapalona...


we could come back to who playing nice football and which league is de best etc next week tuesday

please and thanks.... before ah burst ah damn blood vessel



... bout you kinda agree with pep... gimme ah damn chance

[Mackie]

Now I eh no Chelsea fan (MAN U !!) but i really dont understand some of these comments . There are different styles of football and its not news that Barca and Arsenal play the most aesthetically pleasing brand. But once you support a team , you support the team no matter if their brand is great on the day or not. Look at us Trinis. When we played Sweden , did we turn off the tv in disgust when we basically camped in our half for the whole game? No , we cheered every tackle , every off the line clearance , every save. My point is fans will watch their team whether the brand is the best to watch on that day or not. I am sure that this extends to fans who are watching a team that isnt "their " team .. Everybody loves an underdog. And on the day Chelsea were the underdog , based mostly on the fact that they were playing away from home.
Also, what makes a brand better? Because it is pretty ? If something is pretty but ineffective does that not make it inferior in some aspects?

[Mango Chow!]

Now I eh no Chelsea fan (MAN U !!) but i really dont understand some of these comments . There are different styles of football and its not news that Barca and Arsenal play the most aesthetically pleasing brand. But once you support a team , you support the team no matter if their brand is great on the day or not. Look at us Trinis. When we played Sweden , did we turn off the tv in disgust when we basically camped in our half for the whole game? No , we cheered every tackle , every off the line clearance , every save. My point is fans will watch their team whether the brand is the best to watch on that day or not. I am sure that this extends to fans who are watching a team that isnt "their " team .. Everybody loves an underdog. And on the day Chelsea were the underdog , based mostly on the fact that they were playing away from home.
Also, what makes a brand better? Because it is pretty ? If something is pretty but ineffective does that not make it inferior in some aspects?

       Chelsea being one of the big teams in the EPL should not resort to that type of strategy (and I is a Chelsea man, eh!)  T&T against sweden......we are the smallest nation to ever play in a World Cup.  We did what would have been prudent of us and STILL got an even better result than expected. Our tactics were justified, Chelsea's weren't.

[kicker]

Kicker, I don't think the performancec comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority when Barca was/ is being crowned as the best team on the planet. Chelsea was the underdog yesterday, and regardless of whom Barca played in the semis - they would have been favoured to win. No-one believed Chelsea could get a result at Camp Nou EXCEPT for Chelsea fans, and they were written off as inferior before the game. It's a good thing the game was played, because now the questions are being asked whether the Barca team is well-tempered, disciplined or athletically superior to outwit Chelsea.

Yesterday's showcase was epitomized from the outset by expectations but Chelsea went in with a game plan, and they executed. Barca went in with a game plan and could not execute.

I also get what you're saying about winning is everything versus joga bonito .... but it is the results that matter, not necessarily how you come to those results that will measure the accomplishments of the team. Take for example, the Arsenal team that we will see today. They currently play the most aesthetically pleasing brand of football in the EPL, but what recent silverware do they have to show for that?

Much has also been made about the Chelsea payroll as though Chelsea is the only side with a multi-million dollar payroll that has approached Barca with a defensive mindset. Well the payroll was well worth it, because regardless of their formation or tactics, the millionaires earned their salaries and a bonus last evening because they followed instructions and stuck to what they were told to do. They sat back and let Barca overpass, while they surged forward on the counter-attack.

Chelsea will undoubtedly be more attacking at Stamford Bridge, and if Chelsea scores first, expect the superior talent at Barca to panic, quake and complain alot more - because they ran into a impermeable wall in Camp Nou, and they know it will be replicated 10-fold at The Bridge if Chelsea are one up.

I hear you... yuh hadda understand, I'm a neutral unlike you so I'm not as married to Chelsea's tactical mastermind as you are...and yuh not telling me anything I don't already know....I just woulda liked to see a more end to end battle ...or an attempt at such- doh get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed the game because I love football, and I like the tension of a nailbiter even if it ends goalless...

If it were my squad playing like Chelsea did in that game, I'd outwardly stand by them (though deep inside I'd have preferred if they could go toe to toe with Barca in a more open affair, but I probably wouldn't admit it due to pride   )...so iz no scene.  End of day like you say the intended result was achieved...and Champions league football (except for the final) in a way is not "pure" (in quotes of course) football- it's 180 (or 210 minutes) played in two different settings where you have to balance out certain factors in a marathon as opposed to just going for broke in the 90 min sprint so naturally tactics will play a bigger role depending on the matchups...and I'm pretty sure that Chelsea will play a more open game in the return leg..... so it is what it is.

I'm not sure why people are getting so defensive and worked up over this one...it's just observations and opinions- still plenty of the game to play.  

[kicker]

Kicker stop bleddy taking Barca side in anything or bigging dem up in any kinda roundabout way for meh please... 

Classico dis weekend.... so dey is ultimate sh!t for de time being!1

Level toots.... Crapalona...


we could come back to who playing nice football and which league is de best etc next week tuesday

please and thanks.... before ah burst ah damn blood vessel



... bout you kinda agree with pep... gimme ah damn chance

 

doh kill meh

[acb]

       Chelsea being one of the big teams in the EPL should not resort to that type of strategy (and I is a Chelsea man, eh!)  T&T against sweden......we are the smallest nation to ever play in a World Cup.  We did what would have been prudent of us and STILL got an even better result than expected. Our tactics were justified, Chelsea's weren't.

well as a Chelsea man, I have to digress ... the end result justify the means.
Chelsea got a favourable result, and now it's Chelsea's tie to lose at home.

If before the game you had told Chelsea they could come away with a 0-0 tie they wouldve taken the result and fled.

[acb]

Kicker, I don't think the performancec comes off as an uncharacteristic admission of inferiority when Barca was/ is being crowned as the best team on the planet. Chelsea was the underdog yesterday, and regardless of whom Barca played in the semis - they would have been favoured to win. No-one believed Chelsea could get a result at Camp Nou EXCEPT for Chelsea fans, and they were written off as inferior before the game. It's a good thing the game was played, because now the questions are being asked whether the Barca team is well-tempered, disciplined or athletically superior to outwit Chelsea.

Yesterday's showcase was epitomized from the outset by expectations but Chelsea went in with a game plan, and they executed. Barca went in with a game plan and could not execute.

I also get what you're saying about winning is everything versus joga bonito .... but it is the results that matter, not necessarily how you come to those results that will measure the accomplishments of the team. Take for example, the Arsenal team that we will see today. They currently play the most aesthetically pleasing brand of football in the EPL, but what recent silverware do they have to show for that?

Much has also been made about the Chelsea payroll as though Chelsea is the only side with a multi-million dollar payroll that has approached Barca with a defensive mindset. Well the payroll was well worth it, because regardless of their formation or tactics, the millionaires earned their salaries and a bonus last evening because they followed instructions and stuck to what they were told to do. They sat back and let Barca overpass, while they surged forward on the counter-attack.

Chelsea will undoubtedly be more attacking at Stamford Bridge, and if Chelsea scores first, expect the superior talent at Barca to panic, quake and complain alot more - because they ran into a impermeable wall in Camp Nou, and they know it will be replicated 10-fold at The Bridge if Chelsea are one up.

I hear you... yuh hadda understand, I'm a neutral unlike you so I'm not as married to Chelsea's tactical mastermind as you are...and yuh not telling me anything I don't already know....I just woulda liked to see a more end to end battle ...or an attempt at such- doh get me wrong I thoroughly enjoyed the game because I love football, and I like the tension of a nailbiter even if it ends goalless...

If it were my squad playing like Chelsea did in that game, I'd outwardly stand by them (though deep inside I'd have preferred if they could go toe to toe with Barca in a more open affair, but I probably wouldn't admit it due to pride   )...so iz no scene.  End of day like you say the intended result was achieved...and Champions league football (except for the final) in a way is not "pure" (in quotes of course) football- it's 180 (or 210 minutes) played in two different settings where you have to balance out certain factors in a marathon as opposed to just going for broke in the 90 min sprint so naturally tactics will play a bigger role depending on the matchups...and I'm pretty sure that Chelsea will play a more open game in the return leg..... so it is what it is.

I'm not sure why people are getting so defensive and worked up over this one...it's just observations and opinions- still plenty of the game to play.  

true!!! ... I see a pardner comment earlier that men call the game boring, but they sit down and watch the whole game and talking about it for the last umpteen pages.

[Mackie]

Now I eh no Chelsea fan (MAN U !!) but i really dont understand some of these comments . There are different styles of football and its not news that Barca and Arsenal play the most aesthetically pleasing brand. But once you support a team , you support the team no matter if their brand is great on the day or not. Look at us Trinis. When we played Sweden , did we turn off the tv in disgust when we basically camped in our half for the whole game? No , we cheered every tackle , every off the line clearance , every save. My point is fans will watch their team whether the brand is the best to watch on that day or not. I am sure that this extends to fans who are watching a team that isnt "their " team .. Everybody loves an underdog. And on the day Chelsea were the underdog , based mostly on the fact that they were playing away from home.
Also, what makes a brand better? Because it is pretty ? If something is pretty but ineffective does that not make it inferior in some aspects?

       Chelsea being one of the big teams in the EPL should not resort to that type of strategy (and I is a Chelsea man, eh!)  T&T against sweden......we are the smallest nation to ever play in a World Cup.  We did what would have been prudent of us and STILL got an even better result than expected. Our tactics were justified, Chelsea's weren't.

Aye chow my point is that the game doh have to be top drawer in terms of skills to be exciting and command an audience!
Also if Barca had score two goals at home , you think they would have come out attacking at Stamford Bridge? Its a home and away tie and teams do what they have to do to get the result. No point in being gung ho at 0-0 away from home. It snot about playing inferior football , its just wisdom . Barca as I indicated would have done the same.

[dinho]

with regards to the men who take umbrage with my assertion that Barcelona is the best team in football right now..

can you only make this judgement based on titles? is it impossible for you to grade the best team on the planet at any given point before the season is over?

Personally, I watch enough serie A, EPL, La Liga and Bundesliga ball for the season to be able to make that straightforward conclusion. I doh need to wait to see who win a Champions League to then come and say well that side is the best. This is a cup competition in which the best team doesn't necessarily win.. too many variables...

No team in the world right now is playing on Barcelona's level and I say that without reservation.. Offensively, I haven't seen anything like it in a long time.. Defensively they are imperious and the entire team presses at a high intensity, which is why they win the ball back so quickly..

Seriously fellahs.. I done realize what underlying all this... ignorance!!

men who cant acknowledge this Barca side is men who does watch predominantly EPL ball.

Probably the same men who could rate Van Der Sar and Reina as the best goalkeepers in the world and forget to mention ah Julio Cruz.. Or the men who was seriously rating Berbatov at the same level or better than Ibrahimovic... Or men who unable to appreciate just how good Andres Iniesta is this year.

I even see a man go as far as to say "Barcelona could only beat shitty La Liga teams", when the quality is woefully lacking outside the EPL top 4. Allyuh feel Aston Villa and Everton could run with Sevilla/Atletico Madrid?? Thats not even mentioning the glut of very poor teams in the lower half of the league, namely West Brom, Hull, Stoke, Sunderland, Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan who play only something resembling football.

anyhow... ah done rant...

[Filho]

What's even better, Barcelona had their best on the field and could not figure it out. Tactically in terms of results Barcelona got outplayed, and outcoached.

Unless you are trying to say that Barca made no clear cut chances, then the first sentence simply isn't true. True Barca didn't carve them up for 90 minutes, but Chelsea is a top class team. Barca made enough openings that if they had won it would not have been undeserved. Either one of Eto'o, Bojan, or Hleb should have done much better. That 2nd sentence is a bit of an exaggeration. When one team comes out and defends most of the game, they haven't outplayed anyone, nor has their coach outcoached anyone. Not any team can pull off what Chelsea did, but that's not because of the tactical nous on display. For one, it was a 0-0 stalemate. Consider this...if Chelsea's tactic was to play attacking football and they went head to head with Barca, both teams made the same number of chances and the match ended in a 0-0 tie, we would say the game was even. Both team neutralized each other. So exactly how does it make sense to say that if one went into a defensive shell from the first minute, barely attacked on the counter, to then claim they outplayed the opponent with the same 0-0 tie. Chelsea was effective and got a decent result. Barca could not break them down enough times to get the goal they wanted. But they also prevented Chelsea from creating any chances of their own (except for Marquez' moment of madness) on the counter and forced them to defend for practically the whole game, preventing the chance for a dreaded away goal. Result..stalemate. Anyway...I understand that's your opinion. No disrespect, just sharing mine.

[elan]

What's even better, Barcelona had their best on the field and could not figure it out. Tactically in terms of results Barcelona got outplayed, and outcoached.

Unless you are trying to say that Barca made no clear cut chances, then the first sentence simply isn't true. True Barca didn't carve them up for 90 minutes, but Chelsea is a top class team. Barca made enough openings that if they had won it would not have been undeserved. Either one of Eto'o, Bojan, or Hleb should have done much better. That 2nd sentence is a bit of an exaggeration. When one team comes out and defends most of the game, they haven't outplayed anyone, nor has their coach outcoached anyone. Not any team can pull off what Chelsea did, but that's not because of the tactical nous on display. For one, it was a 0-0 stalemate. Consider this...if Chelsea's tactic was to play attacking football and they went head to head with Barca, both teams made the same number of chances and the match ended in a 0-0 tie, we would say the game was even. Both team neutralized each other. So exactly how does it make sense to say that if one went into a defensive shell from the first minute, barely attacked on the counter, to then claim they outplayed the opponent with the same 0-0 tie. Chelsea was effective and got a decent result. Barca could not break them down enough times to get the goal they wanted. But they also prevented Chelsea from creating any chances of their own (except for Marquez' moment of madness) on the counter and forced them to defend for practically the whole game, preventing the chance for a dreaded away goal. Result..stalemate. Anyway...I understand that's your opinion. No disrespect, just sharing mine.

Did they not have their best players on the field? Who else they have on the bench to come and get something done, Bojan came on with time. Who Gudjonson?

[Filho]

with regards to the men who take umbrage with my assertion that Barcelona is the best team in football right now..

can you only make this judgement based on titles? is it impossible for you to grade the best team on the planet at any given point before the season is over?

Personally, I watch enough serie A, EPL, La Liga and Bundesliga ball for the season to be able to make that straightforward conclusion. I doh need to wait to see who win a Champions League to then come and say well that side is the best. This is a cup competition in which the best team doesn't necessarily win.. too many variables...

No team in the world right now is playing on Barcelona's level and I say that without reservation.. Offensively, I haven't seen anything like it in a long time.. Defensively they are imperious and the entire team presses at a high intensity, which is why they win the ball back so quickly..

Seriously fellahs.. I done realize what underlying all this... ignorance!!

men who cant acknowledge this Barca side is men who does watch predominantly EPL ball.

Probably the same men who could rate Van Der Sar and Reina as the best goalkeepers in the world and forget to mention ah Julio Cruz.. Or the men who was seriously rating Berbatov at the same level or better than Ibrahimovic... Or men who unable to appreciate just how good Andres Iniesta is this year.

I even see a man go as far as to say "Barcelona could only beat shitty La Liga teams", when the quality is woefully lacking outside the EPL top 4. Allyuh feel Aston Villa and Everton could run with Sevilla/Atletico Madrid?? Thats not even mentioning the glut of very poor teams in the lower half of the league, namely West Brom, Hull, Stoke, Sunderland, Bolton, Blackburn, Wigan who play only something resembling football.

anyhow... ah done rant...

Well I am a little different. I love Barca, and think they are playing the 'best' ball on the planet when they on their game. But I've seen them look poor a couple of times as well. I also know that no matter how well they play, some teams just match up well against them. For 2009, Atletico Madrid couldn't buy a win, home or away, but when the league leaders came to town, best believe they felt they were going to get their first win of the new year. And they did. Atletico's forwards have matched up well against Barca's defense in recent years, so much so that even though they not in the same class in league standing or European play, Atletico almost certain of a 3 points against Barca in the last 5 or so years. So when they got drawn against Chelsea, I had no expectations cuz you never know how Barca style was going to match up against Chelsea's regardless of how they look in every other game of the season. I like their style and I like the kind of players they have and in my heart I might feel they are the best team..but if they don't win anything, it kinda hard to make that argument. Most I could do is just enjoy the high points of the season.