Actual (Association) Football Talk.

[sdkelso]

They scored those goals thought a very literal wall of white shirts, with 11 (or 10) players standing in their way at all times. Does that really sound like the achievement of a poor team?

The Iniesta goal was not through a wall of any kind. Not to mention the fact that it was right after our captain was sent off and most of our players couldn't give a fuck.

And you people talk as if teams never park the bus. It happens all the time (especially when teams are winning and down to ten men, honestly). Show some respect for how well we defended and how well we took our chances, because your greatest team in the world couldn't manage either of those.

[sdkelso]

You have to employ the right tactics to win any match. For the love of god, who wouldn't park the bus when they're leading with a man down? But even when playing ultra-defensively, in neither leg did they manage to score more goals than us and over both legs we scored more goals. Luck will not sustain a team over two legs. But masterclass tactics and a heroic performance will, which is exactly what we saw from Chelsea.

Our defense was the best I've ever seen--Barcelona's was not.
We took our chances when they came--Barcelona did not.

They're good passers and they know how to close down a midfield, but Chelsea was the better team--tactically, defensively, and even, if the aggregate score counts for anything, offensively. Sure it was a nervy 180 minutes, and I'll admit that I lost faith when we were 2-0 down with no center-backs and ten men. But in the end we prevailed. Couldn't write it any better.

Lionel Messi: Eight games against Chelsea, zero goals. (I'm looking forward to the "Twelve yards and you still can't score!" chants next time we meet.)
Guardiola's Barcelona: Fifty-seven teams played against, only team they haven't beaten is Chelsea.

WE ARE THE FAMOUS, THE FAMOUS CHELSEA!! And we have earned your respect.

[charliepanayi]

Lionel Messi: eight games against Chelsea, zero goals. Five Spanish titles, three European Cups. Boy I bet he feels like a total loser because he can't score against Chelsea!

Yeah, I'll never respect Chelsea, thanks. Especially when people like you make hilarious boasts about how Barcelona have never beaten Chelsea (which is meaningless for any tie aside from this latest one) and (even worse) mocking Messi, by miles the best player in the world and more class in his little finger than someone like John Terry or Ashley Cole has, because he's had two off nights. But thanks for reminding me why I hate them so much.

[Amie]

And still we hear more complaints about how we never played beautiful football. On one hand, we have to win but on the other hand we shouldn't do what it takes to win. The hypocrisy here is killing me. We took the chances we got and they never did well to defend against us because they underestimated us. They fucked up and they paid. Welcome to football. Yes, Lionel Messi is great and all that but that altercation with Lampard? Please tell me that wasn't out of line. No matter what they do on the pitch, no matter how many fouls they commit, there's only one team everyone likes to blame. Nothing to say about Fabregas' history of playacting, nothing to say about the "penalty" they got which was undeserved because, NO contact, again! Nope. Still, they're the faultless players of beautiful football and Chelsea are always the ones to take the blame, no matter what. Please, hate a team all you want but unfair criticisms are utter bullshit, no matter how "beautifully" you put them.

[Dream]

nothing to say about the "penalty" they got which was undeserved because, NO contact, again!

I should have put money on you saying that, but I thought it was too clear cut for even you to pretend it was an injustice. It was one of the most obvious penalties I've seen in ages. AND they didn't buy Fabregas trying for a second, so it's clear they aren't giving just anything to Barcelona.

Still, they're the faultless

Has anyone said they're faultless? They lack aerial talent when Pique is off, and they don't always move their high line back fast enough. These are the two most heard criticisms, and the fact is that Real Madrid are in the ascendancy at the moment. I think you're just imagining a grand blind spot of irrational fandom so you can continue to tell yourself that Chelsea are better and everyone else is wrong. If Chelsea were better, they'd have played a normal game plan, because they'd have expected to win with one. They didn't expect to win, because they're not as good a team, so they focussed on damage limitation and prayed the breaks went their way.

we have to win but on the other hand we shouldn't do what it takes to win.

Chelsea can do whatever they like to win. If that includes faking a substitution to slow the game down, I'm going to call them out on their bullshit whether they win or not. If Chelsea have decided to play with that kind of bullshit, they can damn well accept their criticism.

Ahem...

Spoiler:

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Unbelievable.

[sdkelso]

I'm not talking about how Messi plays against anyone else, I'm talking about how he played against us. The answer is not very well (and I guess his performance is "meaningless for any tie aside from this latest one"). And more class? Really? Shoving Lampard around off the ball? Booting balls into opposing teams supporters? The midget can play football, but get his dick out of your mouth.

And Dream, both commentators and members of the press said that there appeared to be no contact for the penalty. Maybe they should hire you? And faking a substitution? Not at all sure what you're talking about--our substitutions were perfect. Perhaps faking an injury? Even Pique voiced his support for Drogba and condemned people for saying he went down too easily. And Sanchez dived to get Terry sent off, Fabregas dived to win a penalty--if Chelsea are disgraceful, so are Barcelona. Things are not as clear cut as you make them out to be.

The better team (as per the Arsenal fella's "only this tie" criteria) won. Over two legs.

[sdkelso]

Lionel Messi: eight games against Chelsea, zero goals. Five Spanish titles, three European Cups. Boy I bet he feels like a total loser because he can't score against Chelsea!

Looks pretty bummed to me! One team in Europe, etc. etc.

[Dream]

And faking a substitution? Not at all sure what you're talking about--our substitutions were perfect.

When Cahill got injured they announced a sub, registered it with the 4th official, had him put up the sub board and as soon as the ref stopped the game, they went back on it and insisted on playing on with Cahill. The confusion kept play stopped for a minute or two. Then mere minutes later, they subbed Cahill anyway. They turned one injury into three stoppages, one for the injury, a phantom reversal and then an actual reversal. And you won't get me to believe that that was an honest mistake. Time wasting was a very clear policy from Chelsea for all of both legs, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Even Pique voiced his support for Drogba and condemned people for saying he went down too easily.

He did no such thing. He was diplomatic nad gave the benefit of the doubt, but his words were that if Drogba kept up his playacting, Pique would consider him a diver. Since actions speak louder than words, the only time Drogba was on the floor in the second leg, Barcelona played on and ignored him. Drogba cried wolf. He reaped the reward for that.

Sanchez dived to get Terry sent off,

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly think that. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. But it speaks volumes for the amount of salt your other opinions need to be taken with.

[Garm]

Yes... A dive....

Here's a good angle on the intentional knee to the backside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6Ulf7GCQe8

To quote myself from earlier in the thread:

My main problem with Terry is that he's a douche on the pitch. To make a cross-sports reference, he whines harder than Tim Duncan (or to stick with the same sport, Terry whines more than Renaldo). Terry's also not afraid to leave a boot in if he thinks he can get away with it and I just don't have a lot of tolerance for that.

I have no respect for someone who does this. I have outright contempt for someone, like Terry, who is a great player yet feels the need to turn to these types of dirty trickses. It's weak and he deserved the red and deserves to miss the next game. Without his presence at the back I'm curious to see how they do in the final. I think they'll need to pack the box even more without him organizing the back four. Regardless of who they play, the Blues will probably continue their imitation of a 90s Italian squad.

[sdkelso]

When Cahill got injured they announced a sub, registered it with the 4th official, had him put up the sub board and as soon as the ref stopped the game, they went back on it and insisted on playing on with Cahill. The confusion kept play stopped for a minute or two. Then mere minutes later, they subbed Cahill anyway. They turned one injury into three stoppages, one for the injury, a phantom reversal and then an actual reversal. And you won't get me to believe that that was an honest mistake. Time wasting was a very clear policy from Chelsea for all of both legs, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.

He did no such thing. He was diplomatic nad gave the benefit of the doubt, but his words were that if Drogba kept up his playacting, Pique would consider him a diver. Since actions speak louder than words, the only time Drogba was on the floor in the second leg, Barcelona played on and ignored him. Drogba cried wolf. He reaped the reward for that.

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly think that. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. But it speaks volumes for the amount of salt your other opinions need to be taken with.

I can see how you might see it that way given what happened in the first leg, but I honestly think it was a situation of a player hoping he could play on (think of how Cahill must have been feeling then). Also, we only had one defender on the bench, so we only wanted to make the sub if we absolutely had to. Terry signaled to RDM to give Cahill a few minutes to see if he could get through it. I don't believe for one second that when playing ultra-defensively we decided to keep an injured center back on to save time. I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree.

He didn't keep "play-acting" and I never said that the rest of the Barca team gave him the benefit of the doubt. But perhaps they should? In any case, now that you've clarified this doesn't really matter. If I had to bet I'd say he was wasting time, but I'm not convinced and neither was at least one Barca player.

I'm afraid you're twisting what I said here. No doubt Terry was a moron and should have been sent off, but you'd have to be insane to say that Sanchez didn't dive. It's hard to be upset at him for it because the foul was so blatant (which is why you only hear a few people talking about the dive), but my point is that our tactics were no more disgraceful than Barca's. They're widely known as cheaters and divers. I don't appreciate it when Chelsea do it, so I'm glad it doesn't happen that often. All I ask for is no double standards.

To Garm: Terry made a good point that he hadn't been booked yet in the Champions League this season. This was the first time I've seen him do something so stupid and vindictive. I'm embarrassed, but I'm not about to throw him to the wolves. And are you trying to say that our defense was not organized without Terry? Please. In the final we'll play to our strengths and our opponents weaknesses (which is the job of any decent manager) and hope that we have enough quality and believe to carry us through.

[charliepanayi]

Well tonight's game is already more fun than last night's

[ElWanderer]

Well tonight's game is already more fun than last night's

To quote my last tweet: Two soft penalties and a marginally off-side goal... good match, though!

Part of me wants Real to go through so it's Chelsea v Mourinho, but that might make for a very cagey final.

[sdkelso]

Love shoot-outs when my team isn't involved. So exciting.

[Dream]

Neuer!

[Dream]

NEUER!

[sdkelso]

Wow. See you guys in Munich.

[Dream]

Love shoot-outs when my team isn't involved. So exciting.

Finally something I can agree wholeheartedly on!

Though I love them when my team is involved too, it's just not any fun...

[charliepanayi]

Come on Bayern next month!

[Dream]

I'm really glad at least one of these legs turned out to be a great match. In fact, it throws last night's into relief the amount of motion and dynamism tonoght was sometimes amazing. Some absolutley stunning tackles, and great attack and defence from both sides. A real cracker.

[Amie]

Oh wow, put money on me saying that? Yes, you should have because I actually watched the match and saw what happened. I am not sure how that "penalty" was so "obvious" to you.

[sdkelso]

http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/al ... both-legs/

Such a heroic defensive display. You people that are saying that they weren't good games are sensationalists. They were tactical masterpieces, and the second leg was one of the greatest comeback stories in European football's history. Jamie Redknapp called it the best night in European football (a ridiculous statement, but one a few people in here would do well to consider).

Sensationalist, yet anesthetized. Remember the Battle of Helm's Deep? Where Saruman had the "superior army" and Theoden's men holed in and held on for dear life? Saved by divine (or Istarian) intervention? None of you found that compelling? Apparently they should have charged out of Helm's Deep and played Saruman at his own game "for the sake of war."

[Dream]

I am not sure how that "penalty" was so "obvious" to you.

I thought that was as hilarious as it got. Until I read this:

Remember the Battle of Helm's Deep? Where Saruman had the "superior army" and Theoden's men holed in and held on for dear life? Saved by divine (or Istarian) intervention? None of you found that compelling? Apparently they should have charged out of Helm's Deep and played Saruman at his own game "for the sake of war."

Fucking hell. It's football, not imaginary legendary heroes playing at heroic battles. Jesus.

[charliepanayi]

Fictional battles being used as comparison to a football game? Huh? We'll have Godwin's Law next.

[Dream]

Anyway, this penalty. Never touched the ball, took Fabregas' leg.

Spoiler:

Fabregas plays the ball.

Spoiler:

The tackle comes in late.

Spoiler:

And that's a penalty.

[sdkelso]

Clueless, the lot of you. As if they're not comparable? A stronger squad (or army) beaten by a weaker squad (or army) with superior tactics, leadership, and belief. Those are the qualities that made Helm's Deep a moving story. Furthermore, team sports have been compared to war for ages. Either way, you've never seen a sports movie where the underdog prevails? It's a moving story, that is, like I said, unless your anesthetized (or upset because Chelsea knocked out the team that knocked out the team that knocked out Arsenal). And either way it was a tactical masterpiece (orchestrated by an interim manager no less), which neither of you are subtle enough to appreciate. I'm glad your view is not the prevailing one.

Second picture shows Drogba's foot where the ball was and the ball moving away from the Fabregas's foot in the direction it would go had Drogba gotten it (not in the direction the first picture shows the Fabregas is "playing it" toward). The third picture shows no contact (although it doesn't prove that there wasn't contact either). You've proven nothing, but you've given me a good reason to believe that contact or not, Drogba got the ball.

[Dream]

Fabregas' foot is between Drogba's and the ball. But you can look up videos of the incident yourself. I don't care if you're incapable of accepting what everyone else can see for themselves.

[charliepanayi]

Team sports have been compared to war? Only by those who completely lack perspective. And they're seldom compared to battles that didn't actually happen!

Seriously, are there some sane Chelsea fans out there for this thread?

[sdkelso]

Fabregas' foot is between Drogba's and the ball. But you can look up videos of the incident yourself. I don't care if you're incapable of accepting what everyone else can see for themselves.

But not everybody can see it, that was my point! Plenty of people claimed at the time of the incident that there was no contact! I couldn't care less--the penalty was given, the midget missed. All I'm saying is don't insult people for claiming taking a side opposite yours over an incident that was not at all clear at the time that it happened.

Team sports have been compared to war? Only by those who completely lack perspective. And they're seldom compared to battles that didn't actually happen!

Seriously, are there some sane Chelsea fans out there for this thread?

You pick out a sentence of my post and ignore the rest? How are team sports not like war? What perspective are you talking about? Team sports are like war in highly relevant ways (which I've already pointed out). Sure, people don't kill each other, but how relevant is that? We're talking about a romanticized concept of war (such as it is depicted in The Lord of the Rings and elsewhere). You see romanticization of war downplays the parts of war that are incomparable to team sports (death, ugliness, money, etc.), so choosing a war or battle that has been romanticized would be a great comparison. Comparing it to Helm's Deep is actually extremely appropriate given that it is an entirely romanticized concept of war. Helm's Deep moves viewers because of the romantic qualities of it (named above). The match we are talking about had the same qualities which made Helm's Deep so moving. Fictional or not (how is that at all relevant??), it is an entirely apt comparison. Any Arsenal fans here intelligent enough to understand that?

[DaBigCheez]

Sensationalist, yet anesthetized. Remember the Battle of Helm's Deep? Where Saruman had the "superior army" and Theoden's men holed in and held on for dear life? Saved by divine (or Istarian) intervention? None of you found that compelling? Apparently they should have charged out of Helm's Deep and played Saruman at his own game "for the sake of war."

Theoden: So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?
Aragorn: Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them.
Theoden: For death and glory.
Aragorn: For Rohan. For your people.
Theoden: The Horn of Helm Hammerhand will sound in the deep, one last time!

[Garm]

Comparing sports to war isn't that unusual. Doesn't make it any less stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0

Packing the box and counter attacking isn't tactically amazing. It's pragmatic. It's a way to win against a more dynamic side if you know you can rely on the organization of your defense and the speed of your forwards. In 2010, when Mourinho guided Inter to the CL trophy he had Milito, Pandev, and Eto'o, all forwards with good pace.

[sdkelso]

Comparing sports to war isn't that unusual. Doesn't make it any less stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0

Packing the box and counter attacking isn't tactically amazing. It's pragmatic. It's a way to win against a more dynamic side if you know you can rely on the organization of your defense and the speed of your forwards. In 2010, when Mourinho guided Inter to the CL trophy he had Milito, Pandev, and Eto'o, all forwards with good pace.

See above for justifications for this specific comparison. You've provided a caricature by someone who is funny, but who is a poor authority for anything but comedy.

You're reducing what our tactics to "packing the box" or "parking the bus," which suggests that you have no eye for subtlety.

[sdkelso]

Sensationalist, yet anesthetized. Remember the Battle of Helm's Deep? Where Saruman had the "superior army" and Theoden's men holed in and held on for dear life? Saved by divine (or Istarian) intervention? None of you found that compelling? Apparently they should have charged out of Helm's Deep and played Saruman at his own game "for the sake of war."

Theoden: So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?
Aragorn: Ride out with me. Ride out and meet them.
Theoden: For death and glory.
Aragorn: For Rohan. For your people.
Theoden: The Horn of Helm Hammerhand will sound in the deep, one last time!

Way to miss my point. According to this lot, going to Helm's Deep in the first place was despicable.

[Garm]

Well I wasn't able to watch the game so it's hard to pull subtlety out of post game reports. I've already discussed how the narrative would have been changed had Barca not had such a taste for the woodwork. Giving away 72% possession does not speak to a subtle strategy, however, so I'm going to stick to my line.

[Dream]

It's a way to win against a more dynamic side if you know you can rely on the organization of your defense and the speed of your forwards.

True, but in Chelsea's case it was dictated by the lack of pace and stamina in their aging side, rather than the mere fact of Barcelona's dynamism. If it were only dynamism that Chelsea couldn't handle they'd be behind both Spurs and Arsenal in the...


Wait.

Oh.

[Diadem]

Clueless, the lot of you. As if they're not comparable? A stronger squad (or army) beaten by a weaker squad (or army) with superior tactics, leadership, and belief. Those are the qualities that made Helm's Deep a moving story.

Listen. Metaphors are houses. They need walls and a roof. You built the walls, but where is the roof? It's missing. And what happens to a house without a roof? That's right, the rain comes in.

So be more careful with your metaphors next time!

[sdkelso]

Well I wasn't able to watch the game so it's hard to pull subtlety out of post game reports. I've already discussed how the narrative would have been changed had Barca not had such a taste for the woodwork. Giving away 72% possession does not speak to a subtle strategy, however, so I'm going to stick to my line.

Fair enough. Messi hit the post once (on the penalty), the other time, Cech pushed it onto the post--credit where credit is due. Barca had only five shots on target. The subtlety was not in the strategy (at least not at its most basic form), it was in the execution. Drogba was playing RB, LB, CB, and CF at various times. We had no recognized center backs on the field. Seeing our fluid defense dismantle each of their attacks was astounding.

To Dream: Yes, let's ignore that most of the points we dropped were from draws, that we had an utterly clueless manager for half the season, and that we thrashed Spurs 5-1 at Wembley. Also, let's ignore that our aging side is now in two finals and Arsenal and Spurs have nothing to show for all of their, uh, dynamism.

Clueless, the lot of you. As if they're not comparable? A stronger squad (or army) beaten by a weaker squad (or army) with superior tactics, leadership, and belief. Those are the qualities that made Helm's Deep a moving story.

Listen. Metaphors are houses. They need walls and a roof. You built the walls, but where is the roof? It's missing. And what happens to a house without a roof? That's right, the rain comes in.

So be more careful with your metaphors next time!

Um, a metaphor is one type of an analogy, and it was certainly not the type I was using. It wasn't a false analogy, either, as I've explained above. Also, your metaphors are considerably lacking. What roof exactly am I missing? What is normally analogous to a roof in an analogy? I shouldn't think that the two things compared must be similar in every way, otherwise they'd be, ya know, the same. The question is whether or not the two things compared are similar in important ways and dissimilar in negligible ways. You've quoted how I think that they're similar--in what ways are they different? People don't die? Well, if you read on, I explained how I was referring to a romantic concept of war (epitomized by Helm's Deep), which downplays or even eliminates the ugly, realistic side of war and emphasizes things like heroism and winning against all odds. No rain.

Funny how none of you who think that it is a false analogy can give me any concrete reasons why.

[Garm]

Tolkien deals largely with archetypes and none of them are particularly romantic. Helms Deep is the heroic last stand, not the romantic battle. Romantic battles are the cavalry to coming over the hill to wax all the injuns. Also see almost every American WWII movie ever made but especially "Tora Tora Tora."

On-topic: Tika-Taka requires space to work. Putting ten men behind the ball is a good, but unimaginative, way to prevent the passing team from opening that space. Playing that way requires a lot of organization since you're generally playing in your defensive third which is what makes it an achievement. Pretty dull stuff tho' if you ask me.

I was thinking about styles of play and it's interesting to me, the way Barca plays. It's almost a counter-attacking style since they press so high and so hard. They rely on quick transitions that start at the midfield and not at their back four. As for Tika-Taka being the best style to play, it's certainly not. It obviously has its weaknesses. Allowing Barca (or Spain) to hold possession in non-threatening positions makes for an outsized share of possession but also limits the chances since you're not turning the ball over and being caught out by their lightning quick attack. I guess my complaint regarding this defensive style is that I like dynamism in the game. It's one of the things that makes football worth watching. So give me a 4-4-2, a 4-3-3, or even the 4-6-0 that Ferguson was using at United a couple of years ago. This 10-0-0 or 8-2-0 is for the birds.

[sdkelso]

A heroic last stand is a romantic concept. Heroism in war is a romantic concept. Romanticism is in opposition to realism--the first idealizes reality, the second treats it as it really is in all of its ugliness. Archetypes in general are rather romantic concepts, especially the chief archetype of Tolkien's, that of good versus evil.

I certainly wouldn't want to watch it every game, but the fact that we had only ten men and no center backs added something to the "achievement." It took organization, concentration, fluidity, and heroism. It also takes a manager that can organize an ultra defensive side out of very few naturally defensive players. Tactically, it was exactly what RDM needed to do, and the execution by the players was magnificent.

Sure, dynamism is more exciting in general, but you're failing to take all of the factors into account. I'd take a team coming back from being 2-0 down with ten men and no center backs against "the best club team in the world" over the Madrid-Bayern affair yesterday. Only of the the two games will be remembered in a few years.

[Amie]

Also, considering that we had the away goal advantage, they should have played more defensively because they shouldn't have conceded any goals. At all. That wasn't very smart, was it?

Re: the no contact thing. The angle in that picture does make it look like there was contact and yet while watching the match there was no replay shown (to me) from that angle. It was only front view and it didn't look like there was any contact.

[charliepanayi]

Rather than comparing football matches to fictional battles, you could try, oh I don't know, comparing them to similar football matches.

And if Chelsea don't win the European Cup, nobody will remember them beating Barcelona in the long run. Luckily I imagine Di Matteo and the Chelsea side know that better than some people here seem to.