Chelsea Vs Barcelona CL SF

Warper

keane2097 wrote: »

Your posts are so bad I'm beginning to think you're a usual poster trolling on a gimmick account.

And this coming from you - you're posts are typical of English Tabloid crap - you in particular post absolute tripe - Messi is crap, Barcelona are crap blah, blah, blah, blah

Warper

CHD wrote: »

hahahaha so funny lol lol lol, :rolleyes:

That wasnt meant to be funny but im glad you found it amusing - good post by the way - keep em comin:rolleyes:

keane2097

Warper wrote: »

And this coming from you - you're posts are typical of English Tabloid crap - you in particular post absolute tripe - Messi is crap, Barcelona are crap blah, blah, blah, blah

See that's your problem dude - someone disagrees with you and the only retort you have is this "Sky Sports Andy Grey Eamonn Dunphy English Tabloid" nonsense that you froth out.

Ric Flair (of all the ridiculous people to be quoting) said it best:

"To be the Man, you gotta beat the man"

The "man" in this case is the English teams, who have been the powerhouse of European soccer for several years now. In order to prove that he's the greatest player alive Leo Messi must perform against these teams, the same way Barcelona must to prove they're the best team.

In 06/07 Liverpool knocked Barca out in the First knockout round, and Liverpool fans will tell happily tell you that Arbeloa, who is far from the world's greatest defender, had Messi in his pocket throughout the tie. Neither Messi nor Barca were able to make the step up and beat one of the powerhouses of European football on this occasion.

In 07/08 Barca met United in the semi-final. Over two legs they failed to score a goal. Messi again failed to produce much to set the pulse racing, certainly nothing to justify his billing as "on a different planet" to everyone else. United won 1-0 at Old Trafford, having missed a penalty at the Nou Camp and going on to play out a 0-0 draw in the first leg.

This year they've met Chelsea - a third chance for them to beat one of Europe's very top clubs. In the game last night they again failed to even score. Messi had nary a kick for most of the first half and for the entirity of the second half - all of this while being marked by a right back out of position in Bosingwa, along with everyone's favourite pillory-boy Florent Malouda. Besides a flurry of chances in the last few minutes Chelsea were more or less comfortable at the back for the majority of the game, with Eto'o's chance in the first half cancelled out by Drogba's at least equally good chance.

Perhaps Barca will go to Stamford Bridge and get a result. Perhaps Messi will tear Chelsea apart in the second leg. If they do I'll be happy to say they've proved themselves capable of beating the very best world soccer has to offer.

If not - if Chelsea get the result and Messi again flatters to deceive - then I'll happily stick with the opinion I have now, that Barcelona are, by a considerable distance, the best of the chasing pack, but that they're not quite at the level of the Premiership's top three teams. I'll also retain my opinion that Messi is a very talented player, but he has a lot to do to live up to the billing the likes of you give him.

All of this opinion is based purely on one variable - the games where Barca come up against the very best.

"To be the Man, you gotta beat the man"

I look forward to you ignoring this post, or alternatively selecting random words from it and adding "English Tabloid", "Sky Sports", "Andy Gray" or simply "blah" to it to make your retort.

bullpost

gosplan wrote: »

Same result, huge difference in how the teams went about it, and how they go about the game in general.

So - You missed the Chelsea Liverpool CL games then? Cos I'm not sure what you would have made of Chelsea tactically in those games

eagle eye

keane2097 wrote: »

See that's your problem dude - someone disagrees with you and the only retort you have is this "Sky Sports Andy Grey Eamonn Dunphy English Tabloid" nonsense that you froth out.

Ric Flair (of all the ridiculous people to be quoting) said it best:

"To be the Man, you gotta beat the man"

The "man" in this case is the English teams, who have been the powerhouse of European soccer for several years now. In order to prove that he's the greatest player alive Leo Messi must perform against these teams, the same way Barcelona must to prove they're the best team.

In 06/07 Liverpool knocked Barca out in the First knockout round, and Liverpool fans will tell happily tell you that Arbeloa, who is far from the world's greatest defender, had Messi in his pocket throughout the tie. Neither Messi nor Barca were able to make the step up and beat one of the powerhouses of European football on this occasion.

In 07/08 Barca met United in the semi-final. Over two legs they failed to score a goal. Messi again failed to produce much to set the pulse racing, certainly nothing to justify his billing as "on a different planet" to everyone else. United won 1-0 at Old Trafford, having missed a penalty at the Nou Camp and going on to play out a 0-0 draw in the first leg.

This year they've met Chelsea - a third chance for them to beat one of Europe's very top clubs. In the game last night they again failed to even score. Messi had nary a kick for most of the first half and for the entirity of the second half - all of this while being marked by a right back out of position in Bosingwa, along with everyone's favourite pillory-boy Florent Malouda. Besides a flurry of chances in the last few minutes Chelsea were more or less comfortable at the back for the majority of the game, with Eto'o's chance in the first half cancelled out by Drogba's at least equally good chance.

Perhaps Barca will go to Stamford Bridge and get a result. Perhaps Messi will tear Chelsea apart in the second leg. If they do I'll be happy to say they've proved themselves capable of beating the very best world soccer has to offer.

If not - if Chelsea get the result and Messi again flatters to deceive - then I'll happily stick with the opinion I have now, that Barcelona are, by a considerable distance, the best of the chasing pack, but that they're not quite at the level of the Premiership's top three teams. I'll also retain my opinion that Messi is a very talented player, but he has a lot to do to live up to the billing the likes of you give him.

All of this opinion is based purely on one variable - the games where Barca come up against the very best.

"To be the Man, you gotta beat the man"

I look forward to you ignoring this post, or alternatively selecting random words from it and adding "English Tabloid", "Sky Sports", "Andy Gray" or simply "blah" to it to make your retort.

What a load of waffle.

If we are to take this 'to be the man, you got to beat the man' then AC Milan are still ranked above Manchester United. Because Milan was the man in 2007 and United haven't beaten the man.

Or does it change every so often and of course if it does change then you don't need to beat the man to be the man. And your whole point is waffle.

keane2097

eagle eye wrote: »

What a load of waffle.

If we are to take this 'to be the man, you got to beat the man' then AC Milan are still ranked above Manchester United. Because Milan was the man in 2007 and United haven't beaten the man.

Or does it change every so often and of course if it does change then you don't need to beat the man to be the man. And your whole point is waffle.

Are you honestly disputing that the English teams are the benchmark by which all other teams need to be measured?

The point is, to prove you are the best around you have to beat the best around.

Of course Milan are no longer "the man" - they aren't even in the Champions League.

If the English teams, or even Barcelona, were given the opportunity to play Milan this year I'd be very confident they'd beat them. The fact is they haven't had that chance.

Barcelona, on the other hand, are playing one of the top three teams in England for the third season in a row and, assuming they don't get through the second leg, will have failed to prove their mettle on each occasion.

You simply avoiding the issue by pointing out a flaw in the analogy is typical of your posts though, as I've said in the past all you ever want to do is talk around the point.

eagle eye

keane2097 wrote: »

Are you honestly disputing that the English teams are the benchmark by which all other teams need to be measured?

The point is, to prove you are the best around you have to beat the best around.

Of course Milan are no longer "the man" - they aren't even in the Champions League.

If the English teams, or even Barcelona, were given the opportunity to play Milan this year I'd be very confident they'd beat them. The fact is they haven't had that chance.

Barcelona, on the other hand, are playing one of the top three teams in England for the third season in a row and, assuming they don't get through the second leg, will have failed to prove their mettle on each occasion.

You simply avoiding the issue by pointing out a flaw in the analogy is typical of your posts though, as I've said in the past all you ever want to do is talk around the point.

Did you watch the game last night?
It was all Barcelona, ok they failed to score and thats important in the context of the tie, but you had one of the two best sides in Premier League football over the past three seasons with a squad full of world class names who sat back and played like a league two side would play against a top premier league team.
If Barcelona won this game 4-1 there could have been no complaints from Chelsea as it would have reflected the domination that occurred on the pitch.

This is the best team in Europe right now without a shadow of a doubt. The team was always full of flair but Pep Guardiola has added something to them, they never gave up or got frustrated last night, they believed from start to finish that they would score. Its the first time this year that they have failed to do that at the Nou Camp.

Yes Chelsea survived but thats what it was, a mission of survival not two football teams going at it.

With all the millions that Chelsea have spent on players, do you not think its incredible that they went to the Nou Camp with an attitude that if they were to go at Barcelona they would certainly lose?

Imo Chelsea FC decided before this game that it was impossible for them to play football against Barcelona and be successful. That shows just how highly Guus Hiddink rates Barcelona.

To summarise, a top PL outfit went to the Nou Camp last night believing that the only way to survive was to park the bus. Surely that means that they fully respect that Barcelona are a better team than them.

Raskolnikov

keane2097 wrote: »

I'll also retain my opinion that Messi is a very talented player, but he has a lot to do to live up to the billing the likes of you give him.

My feelings too. If you ask me, he's in the same position that Ronaldo was in two years ago. The only difference was that people were calling Ronaldo a bottler and a no-show at the big games.

So let's leave the cornation of "The Best Player on the Planet" until he wins something (by the way, I am aware he already has a Champions League medal, but that hardly counts as he was injured for the knock-out phases then).

keane2097

eagle eye wrote: »

Did you watch the game last night?

Yes.

eagle eye wrote: »

It was all Barcelona, ok they failed to score and thats important in the context of the tie, but you had one of the two best sides in Premier League football over the past three seasons with a squad full of world class names who sat back and played like a league two side would play against a top premier league team.

The nice thing about this debate is that we'll get an answer to it one way or another next week.

You don't seem to rate the fact that Barca failed to score against English opposition yet again as important, I on the other hand do.

eagle eye wrote: »

If Barcelona won this game 4-1 there could have been no complaints from Chelsea as it would have reflected the domination that occurred on the pitch.

I disagree.

Barcelona only had two excellent chances - Eto'o in the first half and Bojan's header.

Chelsea had the same - Drogba in the first half and Ballack's header at the start of the second half.

Everything else was half chances.

In any case it's irrelevant, since they couldn't actually score and I'm sorry, but for a team that prides itself on its attacking that matters.

eagle eye wrote: »

This is the best team in Europe right now without a shadow of a doubt.

They can go a long way towards proving that next week - I don't think they will.

eagle eye wrote: »

Its the first time this year that they have failed to do that at the Nou Camp.

Tellingly imo as this is the first occasion where they've faced top opposition this year.

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes Chelsea survived but thats what it was, a mission of survival not two football teams going at it.

Chelsea completed the objective they set out to, Barcelona didn't.

eagle eye wrote: »

With all the millions that Chelsea have spent on players, do you not think its incredible that they went to the Nou Camp with an attitude that if they were to go at Barcelona they would certainly lose?

Imo Chelsea FC decided before this game that it was impossible for them to play football against Barcelona and be successful. That shows just how highly Guus Hiddink rates Barcelona.

I think it would be incredible for them to simply play into Barca's hands. I'd imagine Chelsea have heard as much of the hype as everyone else has this season. Perhaps they believed it and did think they couldn't go to Barca and play openly or they'd lose.

Even if it's true, Barcelona's job was to win the match last night, Chelsea's was simply not to lose. It's up to Barca to cope with the other team's tactics and they failed to do so.

Now the point is, you're not going to argue me around the opinions I've expressed above and I doubt I'll be able to do the same for you.

Let's move instead to a hypothetical situation:

Barcelona have the majority of the possession in the return leg, create a number of decent chances but fail to score again. Chelsea win 1-0 with a second half goal and go through.

Are Barca still the best team evar?

Cos that's basically the point I'm making. Barca can continue to have all these moral victories, "dominating" games whatever that means etc. but if in the end they repeatedly fail to beat, or even score against, the English teams then surely they can't be better than them?

They might play a more appealing brand of soccer, but that's certainly not the same thing...

Thoughts?

eagle eye

If the game goes the same way next week as regards possession and domination then its fairly certain that there will be only one result.

It happens from time to time that a team who park the bus get their reward against a brilliant team. It doesn't happen often enough for it to be likely to occur in the second leg.

dfx-

keane2097 wrote: »

Tellingly imo as this is the first occasion where they've faced top opposition this year.

Since when was a side who pre-meditatedly have no intention to attack regarded as top opposition? :eek:

Do you call Hull and Sunderland et al's successful performances at the top four this season that of top opposition? Chelsea are not the first side to wave the white flag to Barcelona and not the last. The best I heard last night was "a great tactical performance got Chelsea a draw". Great tactics

Barr

dfx- wrote: »

Since when was a side who pre-meditatedly have no intention to attack regarded as top opposition? :eek:

Do you call Hull and Sunderland et al's successful performances at the top four this season that of top opposition? Chelsea are not the first side to wave the white flag to Barcelona and not the last. The best I heard last night was "a great tactical performance got Chelsea a draw". Great tactics

Ultimately its the results that matter .... Chelsea have placed themselves nicely for next week.

dfx-

Results may matter, but let's not kid ourselves and say Chelsea last night are better than what Barcelona have already faced this season.

I mean Getafe got a 1-1 draw at the Camp Nou and Espanyol won 2-1 on results and Liverpool with Craig Bellamy won 2-1 there too :eek:

keane2097

dfx- wrote: »

Results may matter, but let's not kid ourselves and say Chelsea last night are better than what Barcelona have already faced this season.

I mean Getafe got a 1-1 draw at the Camp Nou and Espanyol won 2-1 on results and Liverpool with Craig Bellamy won 2-1 there too :eek:

If you're claiming that Getafe and Espanyol are better than Chelsea I think I've found another man for my ignore list...

dfx-

I'm not - you've missed my point spectacularly. My point is results may matter as mentioned by Barr, but tell you nothing about the teams. Rubbish teams can get results like Hull did at Chelsea as a matter of fact.

SlickRic

Barr wrote: »

Ultimately its the results that matter .... Chelsea have placed themselves nicely for next week.

it's completely 50/50 for next week.

it's advantage nobody.

if they'd scored they'd have placed themselves 'nicely'.

ShooterSF

Some seem to neglect that this is a two-legged affair unlike Hull's or Stoke's park the bus 0-0 draws. I think barca will go through on a score draw next week. If they don't I'll happily rank them as attractive but not lethal enough against the best tier.

dfx-

It makes it even more idiotic and inexplicable in a two legged tie where away goals count. Especially where you can go out to a score draw.

redout

eagle eye wrote: »

This is the best team in Europe right now without a shadow of a doubt. The team was always full of flair but Pep Guardiola has added something to them, they never gave up or got frustrated last night, they believed from start to finish that they would score. Its the first time this year that they have failed to do that at the Nou Camp.

Highly disputable that.

The fact is they couldnt break Chelsea down and score.

Their first real test and the jury is still out.

I reckon Barca have the upper hand now as Chelsea will have to attack at the bridge which will play into Barca's hands.

Slash/ED

Raskolnikov wrote: »

My feelings too. If you ask me, he's in the same position that Ronaldo was in two years ago.

This is genuinely one of the funniest things I've ever read, well played sir

You go on to say we'll judge him when he wins something, what a trophyless careert this still eligable for the U21s player has had. Just the following things he's won, pathetic for a chap his age...

* La Liga:
o Winner (2): 2004/2005, 2005/2006
o Runner-up (1): 2006/2007
* UEFA Champions League:
o Winner (1): 2005/2006
* Supercopa de España:
o Winner (2): 2005/2006, 2006/2007

Flag of Argentina Argentina

* FIFA U-20 World Cup:
o Winner (1): 2005
* Summer Olympics:
o Gold medal (1): 2008
* Copa América:
o Runner-up (1): 2007

[edit] Individual

* FIFA World Player of the Year:
o Runner-up: 2007, 2008
* U-21 European Footballer of the Year: 2007
* FIFA U-20 World Cup Top Scorer: 2005
* FIFA U-20 World Cup Player of the Tournament: 2005
* Copa América Young Player of the Tournament: 2007
* Player of the Year of Argentina: 2005, 2007
* FIFPro Special Young Player of the Year: 2006/2007, 2007/2008
* FIFPro World Young Player of the Year: 2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008
* World Soccer Young Player of the Year: 2005/2006, 2006/2007, 2007/2008
* Premio Don Balón (Best Foreign Player in La Liga): 2006/2007
* EFE Trophy (Best Ibero-American Player in La Liga): 2006/2007, 2007/2008
* FIFPro World XI: 2006/2007, 2007/2008
* UEFA Team of the Year: 2007/2008
* FIFA Team of the Year: 2007/2008

CHD

Raskolnikov wrote: »

My feelings too. If you ask me, he's in the same position that Ronaldo was in two years ago. The only difference was that people were calling Ronaldo a bottler and a no-show at the big games.

So let's leave the cornation of "The Best Player on the Planet" until he wins something (by the way, I am aware he already has a Champions League medal, but that hardly counts as he was injured for the knock-out phases then).

jackdaw

CHD wrote: »

I dont get it .. ?

PHB

I don't get this attack on Messi. I thought that he was fairly solid to be hones in the game, was pretty solidly double marked and drew players away and made the pass.

People look at Ronaldo and Messi and expect them to win every game on their own, and if they don't, they are labelled bottlers. Most games they are double marked, even treble marked, and they still produce as good as any other player on the team. Then if they score goals or get assists, everyone is like, oh well his performance was sub par. I honestly believe that lack of understanding of how players are targetted defensively is just shocking.

Messi has been the best player in the world this season. Anyone who watches La Liga on a regular basis can see this, and I honestly couldn't see how it could be anyone else. In a game where probably the 2nd or 3rd best team in the world put 11 men behind the ball, he wasn't able to break through, and people take this as a chance to have a pop at him. It's just silly.

K4t

Slash/ED wrote: »

Quoting this for truth, one team was in complete and utter control and it's amazing how much peoples opinions are shaped by tiny instances in a match. Barca get a penalty, or score some of their chances, and the game otherwise plays out the exact same and people on here would be posting wildly different summaries of the same match. Barca absolutely dominated from start to finish and could easily have a decent lead going into the second leg, it's all to play for now but I think Barca have too much quality, though no Puyol, Millito or Marquez leaves the central defence quite exposed

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda springs to mind here. Barca's play was beautiful, orgasmic, whatever you may call it. But in the end all they had to show for it was a feeble penalty claim, a few shots on target and an awful header from a player who probably shouldn't have been on the pitch.

Chelsea went to the Nou camp to do a job and they did that job perfectly. 100%. Judging by your take on the game of football, if I was a Chelsea fan I'd be saying Chelsea should have won 1-0 if not for Drogba's complete mess of the best chance of the match!

I just hope Chelsea play 4-4-2 at SB because Barca's defence is there for the taking. I know that will leave Chelsea vulnerable at the other end but I don't think they could or should hold out for another draw (you'd be looking at 120minutes).

iregk wrote: »

Yeah Chelsea made a mess of it. The thing to do would have been to go all out and go at Barca. Remind me, the last team that tried that (bayern), how did that go for them?

Too true. The funny thing is that if Chelsea did go all out last night they might have won, given how shocking Barca's defence is! The one thing Marquez had to do in the first half he made a complete mess of. He is nowhere to be seen in the box for corner kicks either. Pique is an average player made look good by an incredible Barca midfield who work their socks off. Alves is the same **** I remember from a few years ago. Don't believe everything FM tells you.

eagle eye wrote: »

This is the best team in Europe right now without a shadow of a doubt. .

I think the European (and World) Champions might have something to say about that.

Slash/ED

K4t wrote: »

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda springs to mind here. Barca's play was beautiful, orgasmic, whatever you may call it. But in the end all they had to show for it was a feeble penalty claim, a few shots on target and an awful header from a player who probably shouldn't have been on the pitch.

Chelsea went to the Nou camp to do a job and they did that job perfectly. 100%. Judging by your take on the game of football, if I was a Chelsea fan I'd be saying Chelsea should have won 1-0 if not for Drogba's complete mess of the best chance of the match!

I didn't say they should have a lead, I'm saying peoples opinions would have swung wildly when assessing the very same match had certain instances - Tiny sections of the same match - Gone differently. For example you say Chelsea did their job perfectly, 100%. I disagree, but for poor finishing/refereeing and mainly, poor final balls from Barca they could have a lead Chelsea would not relish chasing. Would this change your opinion that Chelsea did their job perfectly?

I don't think Chelseas game plan was to not be able to put 3 passes together, give Barca THAT much of the ball and just hope that Barca have a poor game in the final third, which is what happened. I think alot of it simply had to do with the fact they couldn't get near the ball for most of the game and when they had it, couldn't keep it. It wasn't like they shut Barca out from having the ball in dangerous areas, far from it, Barca just didn't finish the chances when they had them or deliver the right final ball when they had the chance to do so. This wasn't a game plan, this was simply Barca not doing enough on the night with what they created.

I just think it's a bit much to hail a tactical masterclass when they could be out of sight if Barcas front three had of displayed the form they have done for most of the season. There's a difference between what Chelsea did and some team playing tactically defencive and not letting the other team near them, which can often be good tactics. It was NOT tactics to say, let's not touch the ball for most of the match and hope when Barca get into space behind us their pass/cross/finish isn't up to scratch. If it was, Hiddink may be some kinda genius in figuring that one out...What it looked like to me, though, was Chelseas mid field simply couldn't live with Barca's, but their front three had as bad a game as they've each had this season.