Champions League Quarter Finals Leg 2

fade2black

lol

Chucky the tree

I knew you'd like that fade.

bucks73

RasTa wrote:

Sweet jesus I hope it's a Utd V Pool final. I'd actually give up the league if it meant that we could beat Liverpool for the 3rd time this season in the final of the champions league. Getting a wee bit ahead of myself just thinking about it.

I wouldnt. League is priority.

PHB

Yeh, League is important as it's the true test of skill imo. CL would be nice, but if we won the CL, but lost the league, I'd be terribly disappointed

Thanx 4 The Fish

The league is not the true test of sill, it is the true test of consisntency. How can a league containing teams like Watford be a true test of skill ? Beat the dross and perform well against the teams in the top half.

While I would prefer to win the league, the CL would not be a bad achievement for the second time in three years. Still a couple of hurdles before that is lifted again.

RE*AC*TOR

Chelsea semi final - AC Milan final - deja vu?

If I were Pope Benedict I'd be getting worried.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Yeah and I'd say Camilla Parker Bowles is upping the guards on protection duty at the palace.

PHB

It's the best test of skill there is imo.
In a cup, anything can happen, one team can win one match and become the champions of Europe, but if they played that match 5 times, they might only win it once. For me, that puts cups automatically behind leagues.

Obviously the CL has much better teams than Premiership, but part of what makes a great team is their ability to beat crap teams consistantly. Consistancy is what skill is all about. If a team can win just big matches, but loses a ****load of small matches, to be it suggests that they aren't that skillful, that their players aren't as good as the team they might beat in a one of match.
Obviously winning cups is great, and it of course measures skill, but not to the same extent a league does.

Personally, I'd love it if the Champions League, took the group stages, took the winner of each group, and made a 8 team league out of it, the winner being the team on the highest points.
They would only play one match against each other, either home/away, divided up fairly, and I think the winner of that league would be the real champions of Europe, undisputed in every sense of the word.

redspider

Liverpool 1-0 PSV (Agg: 4-0)

An easy victory for Liverpool. PSV's main tactic was to hope for a goal on the break and keep the scoreline safe. I can understand that tactic from Koeman as he needs to get the teams heads back on track in their own leage which is now just a 2 point gap to both AZ Alkmaar and Ajax with 3 games to go (no head-to heads). But it was a tactic which was never going to even attempt to get them through this tie.

Liverpool had a 2nd string team out and rested Carra and Stevie G, although I think Carra expends just as much nervous energy watching a match even of no import, as much as playing in it. Bellamy went off injured, and he may be missed in the semi-final against Chelsea, as he could do a job there. That gave Robbie F a chance to get a run-out and a clap. He's a trier but he has lost the little pace that he had, which is essential if a striker is expected to beat people. Still he played his part in the goal and made a nuisance of himself.

But once I saw PSV sub off their most potent forward, Kone, and bring on a youth defender, it showed that PSV were never going to even attempt it.

Ironically, Man Utd beat Roma by a 5 goal margin and are being claimed world beaters. Liverpool beat PSV by a 4 goal margin and with many 2nd string players involved (by choice). Read into that what you will.


Bayern 0-2 AC Milan
A classic Italian job but one built on skill and experience. Bayern just lacked enough depth in the squad and flair to score. Kahn for me is past his best before date and I think a pre-knock Cech would have saved Seedorf's shot.


The semi-finals are interesting. Liverpool and Chelsea know each other so well so the games should be close as they normally are between these two clubs, notwithstanding that a goal can come at any time and there was the 2-4 loss at one stage in recent years. The good news I think from a Liverpool perspective is that Mourinho inside does fear Liverpool, and there is that Portuguese v Spanish culture clash also going on too. Liverpool have nothing to fear, thats for sure. And Chelsea's busy end of season schedule, still within a shout of a very unlikely imo quadruple, should aid Liverpool, who will be 100% optimising for these two games.

Man Utd v AC Milan will be a clash of styles. I think Man Utd, who are home in the 1st leg I understand, will have to go at them with all guns blazing from the start. It will be an interesting battle of youth versus experience. eg: C.Ronaldo versus Maldini, and just a pity that Maldini is not 10 years younger.


Looking forward to some good games .....

redspider

Mitch Connor

redspider wrote:

Liverpool 1-0 PSV (Agg: 4-0)
Ironically, Man Utd beat Roma by a 5 goal margin and are being claimed world beaters. Liverpool beat PSV by a 4 goal margin and with many 2nd string players involved (by choice). Read into that what you will.

PSV aren't that good - not as good as Roma anyway. Also, United were without their captain, their best defender, their best playmaker and the first choice frontman, and still won 7-1.

Personally i think Liverpool's win over Barcelona means more then the win over a poor PSV side (who were very VERY lucky not to be spanked by arsenal, if arsenal could finish, at all, PSV would have lost both legs by some margin)

I'm not saying Liverpool weren't good in the two games, they were certainly good in the first, doing everything that needed to be done (and some very nice goals) and i didn't see last nights game so i can't comment on that. However, PSV are not in the same league as Roma (different countries 'n all:p ) they recently got absolutely whupped by Ajax, 5-1, at home - so they weren't in a good run either.

Regardless though, Liverpool have shown in both the league and the CL they are a tought side to beat (should have got the win from the last United game at Anfield), and they have every chance of winning the CL again this season - possibly more so then united as United are likely to be without Scholes and/or Ronaldo for either the semi-final second leg, or the final (if we make it) Missing Ronnie for either match would be a massive loss to the side.

LegacyUser

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

The league is not the true test of sill, it is the true test of consisntency. How can a league containing teams like Watford be a true test of skill ? Beat the dross and perform well against the teams in the top half.

While I would prefer to win the league, the CL would not be a bad achievement for the second time in three years. Still a couple of hurdles before that is lifted again.

Every league in Europe has useless teams like watford in it!!!!!!!

~Rebel~

cheesedude wrote:

Every league in Europe has useless teams like watford in it!!!!!!!

I don't think his comment had anything to do with england in particular or the content of other leagues, but was instead saying that how can the (or any) league be judged as the supreme test of skill when you don't need skill to beat dross, only consistency.

Fanny Cradock

PHB wrote:

Yeh, League is important as it's the true test of skill imo. CL would be nice, but if we won the CL, but lost the league, I'd be terribly disappointed

I'd disagree. On the European (World?) stage no one, bar the fan, really cares who won their respective league. The money and prestige lies in winning the CL. I would see a league being as strong as it's weakest team. Looking at some of the lesser footballing countries then, it is difficult to argue that the true test of skill lies in their league. As an example of the importance of the CL, I would fele quite certain - excluding the arguments that have seemingly have sealed his fate - if JM didn't win the CL this or next season then he would be sacked irrespective of his league performance.

Mitch Connor

~Rebel~ wrote:

I don't think his comment had anything to do with england in particular or the content of other leagues, but was instead saying that how can the (or any) league be judged as the supreme test of skill when you don't need skill to beat dross, only consistency.

The CL has crap teams in it too - look at Arsenals CL group last season, hardly a 4 team list of european greats was it? United have had some very easy ties over time too.

PHB

Well like, what I mean is that,
Chelsea won the league
United won the CL

I would say that in this season, Chelsea were the better team that United.

Would people not agree with that?

To the extent that if
United ended up 3rd, but won the CL.
Liverpool came 2nd in the league
Chelsea came 1st in the league

Then United are the third worst team there, and I'd expect that next season, unless there are some major changes, the league table would end up
Chelsea
Liverpool
United

I just don't think that the CL is the pure test of skill its made out to be, and that the title of champions of Europe, which technically accurate, wouldn't be necessarily true over aleague. Furthermore, I don't think winning the CL is an indication that you are infact a better team, but just that you happened to play well on that day.

~Rebel~

Tauren wrote:

The CL has crap teams in it too - look at Arsenals CL group last season, hardly a 4 team list of european greats was it? United have had some very easy ties over time too.

it wasn't my point, i just clarified so arguement didnt go off on a tangent.

I agree, every team in the CL will have a few easy enough ties, but theres no way around winning it without beating decent quality teams. Probably 2 or 3 very tough ties to go all the way.

But i would personally still say that the team who wins the league is the better team, i wouldn't call it a test of skill, but consistency is probably the most important thing in football. If you play at a very high level in one off's to win the CL, the same thing will not work in the league. You need to find a decent level and be consistantly playing at that level, with scope to raise your game another bit if required, to win the league

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

It's the best test of skill there is imo.
In a cup, anything can happen, one team can win one match and become the champions of Europe.

PHB wrote:

but just that you happened to play well on that day.

You do realise that, barring the final, you play every team twice in the champions league yea?

Royale with Cheese

Chucky the tree wrote:

You do realise that, barring the final, you play every team twice in the champions league yea?

No, you play 6 teams twice, 1 team once and you never play the other 24 teams in the competition.

Anyone who thinks the winners of the champions league is always the best team in the Europe is kidding themselves. You can knock teams out without ever actually beating them, you can win the entire thing on a penalty shootout. It's a cup competition, a very entertaining one and I think the current format is perfect, but it's nowhere near as good a measure of skill as some kind of European superleague would be.

mike65

RasTa wrote:

Sweet jesus I hope it's a Utd V Pool final. I'd actually give up the league if it meant that we could beat Liverpool for the 3rd time this season in the final of the champions league. Getting a wee just thinking about it.

Ahem!

Mike.

Chucky the tree

Royale with Cheese wrote:

No, you play 6 teams twice, 1 team once and you never play the other 24 teams in the competition.

Anyone who thinks the winners of the champions league is always the best team in the Europe is kidding themselves. You can knock teams out without ever actually beating them, you can win the entire thing on a penalty shootout. It's a cup competition, a very entertaining one and I think the current format is perfect, but it's nowhere near as good a measure of skill as some kind of European superleague would be.

Nothing is really a measure of who the "best" team is though, and there never will be. United have lost twice to Arsenal in the league, so whos the better team? Should united be considerd the better team because they can beat they fodder at the bottom of the league when Arsenal can only beat the good teams in the league?

Whoever wins the league isnt the best team in their country either, they are the most consistant.

Royale with Cheese

Chucky the tree wrote:

Nothing is really a measure of who the "best" team is though, and there never will be. United have lost twice to Arsenal in the league, so whos the better team? Should united be considerd the better team because they can beat they fodder at the bottom of the league when Arsenal can only beat the good teams in the league?

Whoever wins the league isnt the best team in their country either, they are the most consistant.

You just proved my point. United have lost to Arsenal twice this season. If they were champions league games then United would have been knocked out. United are a far better team than Arsenal at the moment and the league table proves that. The most consistent team is the best team. How can you even try and argue the team that wins the league isn't the best in the country.

Both Arsenal-United games were won by late goals and could have gone either way. Over the course of a season these things usually even themselves out in a league whereas in a cup you can just go on a lucky run until you win the final.

leninbenjamin

Royale with Cheese wrote:

You just proved my point. United have lost to Arsenal twice this season. If they were champions league games then United would have been knocked out. United are a far better team than Arsenal at the moment and the league table proves that. The most consistent team is the best team. How can you even try and argue the team that wins the league isn't the best in the country.

Both Arsenal-United games were won by late goals and could have gone either way. Over the course of a season these things usually even themselves out in a league whereas in a cup you can just go on a lucky run until you win the final.

I don't think you can really say one requires more skill than the other. i think cups and leagues require two entirely different set of attributes.

a league requires consistency. you gotta be consistent, and you have to play at a high level across the board. Arsenal have shown they can out play the heavy hitters, but they just haven't that mental strength to maintain their form and confidence over 38 games. the league is a case of mental endurance really.

cup on the other hand is a different scenario. you gotta really fire yourself up for those games, one mistake and it could be all over. i think they really require raising your game above and beyond what is ordinarily shown in any league.

i think its largely different set of skills required. Chelsea are the most consistent team of the past two years in the league but (so far anyways, could prove me wrong yet) haven't been able to raise their game high enough to get through the champions league matches. Conversely Liverpool were pretty poor in the league 2005, yet they had the mental strength to raise their games for the champions league. They both won two immensely challenging competitions but they seemed to both have different mental focuses. Because of that i'm not really sure you can say one team is better than the other.

The really great teams show they can do both, cups and leagues.

Guy:Incognito

Someone do up a league table that only takes into account the results between the teams in the top half.

PHB

See thats the thing, there is no question whatsover in my mind, that Chelsea were a far superior team to Liverpool in the PL CL years. Furthermore, the success of those relative teams next year in both the league and the CL only went to prove that view.

redspider

This issue, over how to measure the best team has been discussed before. My hypothesis on it is as follows.

Different teams have different capabilities and different styles. A league system can measure and be reasonably accurate over which team is better than another, and for example, Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal are clearly better clubs/teams than Watford/West Ham/Sheff Utd.

However, when teams are close to each other, say within 3-6 pts, clearly the variables that are outside the clubs control and in many cases down to chance play a big part in determining the differences. A league could only be hypothetically a 100% accurate measurement of consistentency IF all the teams played each other at exactly the same time and with all the same players with the exact same level of trying, etc, and the same weather conditions, the same referees, the same linesmen, the same fans, the same wind and breezes at the exact same time, the same ball, the same ballboys, etc, etc, etc. You get the picture. THAT is impossible. So, any league system is only be a representation of a comparison of who is better, and not an absolute measure.

Also, the nature of football itself has flaws in measuring who is better in the game itself. There are games which we have all seen when clearly the better team did not win. And such inconsistencies do NOT even themselves out over one season. They do, probabilistically, over 100 seasons, and better again over 1000 seasons, if we shall ever get that far, but not over a mere 34-42 games. That is just too short of a statisical sample to eliminate an 'incorrect'# result, for example a dropped 3 points from a game that should have been won.

Another thing to consider is the head-to-head aspect of football. There are cases where team A is better than team B and usually has the better of them on the pitch in their head-to-heads, yet do not beat them in a league situation because they cannot beat the other teams in the league as easily. In this situation team A is better than team B, clearly, yet the league system shows that team B is better in terms of its capability on average. So, if Team B is better at beating other teams but not in the head to head, which team do you choose at being better? Its a subjective call.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Over the course of a season these things usually even themselves out in a league whereas in a cup you can just go on a lucky run until you win the final.

Things do not even themselves out.
Yes, cups are much more variable than leagues.

Single leg cups are the most variable, hence the so-called 'romance'. Two legged cups are a better format.

I myself would like to see smaller leagues and teams playing each other 4 times, so 10 teams and 36 games and have that as a standard across Europe, if not the world. It would be a more accurate measur than the current system in many countries.

Also, maybe the points system is at fault for measuring which team is better in a game and over a season. Do attacks get recognised? Not at the moment.

One improved way may be to give +10 pts for each goal scored and -8 points for each goal conceded. That would encourage teams to score goals and attack which is what football should be about after all.

Food for thought perhaps .....

Redspider

_blank_

redspider wrote:

One improved way may be to give +10 pts for each goal scored and -8 points for each goal conceded. That would encourage teams to score goals and attack which is what football should be about after all.

Food for thought perhaps .....

Defending is an art in itself, and defensive teams should not be punished.

Football is a game played by eleven players.

Goalkeeper.
Defenders.
Midfielders.
Forwards.

Your suggestion is looking to do away with the art of defending imo.

redspider

seansouth wrote:

Defending is an art in itself, and defensive teams should not be punished. Your suggestion is looking to do away with the art of defending imo.

I fully agree that defending should be recognised and valued and I do so with the system proposed as letting in a goal 'costs' -8 pts. Think of this system as similar to goal difference but with a slight extra weighting (20%) on goals scored.

Doing away with defending would be to just award a point for every goal scored and forget about goals let in and I'm not in favour of that as it can lead teams to connive with each other.

I also think that an objective system should be brought in that would award teams that have attacked the most, in the case of a tie on the scoreline. Perhaps totting up the time in the final 3rd of the pitch, or perhaps the other teams half. It could be measured absolutely for major leagues and would be subjective at grass-roots level of football to be decided by the ref and the 2x assistants. Draws could still be awarded if the difference was negiligible, eg: up to 45% 55%, but if say 44% 56%, then a win would be awarded. Its fairer than a penalty system imo.

Redspider

RE*AC*TOR

redspider - those are some terrible terrible suggestions, more in keeping with the spirit of American Football or Ice-Hockey than football. The fact that a win is 3 points and a draw is only one already encourages attack. There are elements of chance, and elements of not getting what you deserve always, that is one of the things that makes the game great.

Vokes

redspider, i think you would also like to return to pre-1950 2-3-5 formations?

redspider wrote:

I fully agree that defending should be recognised and valued and I do so with the system proposed as letting in a goal 'costs' -8 pts. Think of this system as similar to goal difference but with a slight extra weighting (20%) on goals scored.

If you are giving greater weighting to attacking vs defending, then it does certainly look like you're devaluing the art of defending in favour of attacking - 20% in favour of attacking is a massive difference.

PHB

I'm not saying a league is perfectly accurate, just it's better.

Personally, I think there should be bonus points. Every three goals maybe.

jesus_thats_gre

4 points for a win, 2 points for a score draw and 1 point for a scoreless draw... Easy.

redspider

I dont have a perfect solution, but I think the current situation could be imrpoved upon, just as the 2-1-0 points system was with the 3-1-0 pts change.

SofaKing wrote:

redspider, i think you would also like to return to pre-1950 2-3-5 formations?
If you are giving greater weighting to attacking vs defending, then it does certainly look like you're devaluing the art of defending in favour of attacking - 20% in favour of attacking is a massive difference.

20% is not that massive of a difference. As for 2-3-5, wasnt it more 2-3-4-1 ? ;-)

PHB wrote:

I'm not saying a league is perfectly accurate, just it's better.

But is it? You see head-to-heads are a different battle than playing other teams. Just because A can beat C and B cant beat C, it doesnt mean that A is better than B. Football is not logical like that. Also, a team that is better than another can still lose a game in the league and in head to heads, and they dont even themselves out within 38 games, as its not statistically possible.

I personally think that even for a league, say if Man Utd and Chelsea are within 6 pts of each other, then they have been more or less playin with the same effectiveness on average over the whole season. They are as good as each other, by and large, and I dont think anyone would dispute that. Of course one of them may end up with 4 trophies or the other one with 3!

I'm still in favour of smaller leagues (10 teams).

Redspider

astrofool

I think the schoolyard system broke this week, Manu lost to portsmouth, who lost to Watford, who were beaten by Manu o_O

I think Redspider is mixing cups up with leagues really I mean, say it does go to a play off when teams are within say 2 points, and one team wins by a dodgy decision, is that really a reflection on who the best team in the league was? You play by the rules of the competition, if you don't win, then you didn't deserve to.

And smaller leagues leads to ridiculous situations such as the old firm dominating a league completely, and also cuts the revenue of the larger and smaller teams due to less matches, and/or reduces the value of the league by having multiple seasons within one year.