2013-14 Uefa Champions League

Jelle1880

Qualifying with 7 points and -6 goals, brilliant.

Happy for them, Juve have only themselves to blame.

Francie Barrett

delija_sever029 wrote: »

Milan is going to go to 2nd round

If Ajax beat them they're not.

wonski

To be fair, both sides of the pitch were terrible to play on. It was either a mud, or a really wet surface with ball sliding forward. Attacking side had as much trouble as hat the defending side. It was Galatasaray who scored, and their situation was clearly not due to someone slipping or anything like this. Sneijder shot it right and they deserved a win.
The middle field was terrible to play on, and both teams had to deal with this, we will hear a lot of excuses from Juventus, but the truth is if they had a draw or a win, they would say they adapted better to the conditions.
It isn't always Chateu de Brie, Champagne or any other dream come true pitch. Sometimes you have to get dirty, and fight for the ball harder than ever before. Tactics, strength, and a bit of luck is needed in these situations. Nothing unusual, and it wasn't the first time in history when Galatasaray match with Juve was postponed or cancelled. They - years ago- won in Dortmund when for political/safety reasons couldn't play on their soil...
And to sum it up - nice to see a team like Galata through, with (correct me if i am wrong) 80? % of players being turkish (born in Turkey, not some naturalised crap we see all over Europe). I wish them all the best, don't see them through next stage, but Drogba and Sneijder presence this year will add some value. These guys were "almost" forgotten and still have a chance to impress the footballing world, or at least Europe;)

delija_sever029

Francie Barrett wrote: »

If Ajax beat them they're not.

Wish that,but cant see it happening

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

The conditions were better yesterday.

No, they were not. Did you watch what happened between 20-30 minutes of the game?
Today was tough, but it didn't get worse over the time, so - as tough as it was - it was playable. It did influence the game, made it unwatchable at times, but there was no lucky goal due to conditions or silly mistakes due to the same...
Not a perfect conditions, but there is no guarantee of the perfect ones in Champions League.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

To be fair, both sides of the pitch were terrible to play on. It was either a mud, or a really wet surface with ball sliding forward. Attacking side had as much trouble as hat the defending side.

The sides were pretty far from each other though in terms of playability:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbNZ7SKIIAAKPbT.jpg:large

Sneijder goal was great. But the game did not resemble football enough for me to be considered a "real" match.

It's not a choice between having a "champagne" pitch or "hell" pitch. Do you not think there should be some standards met? Tactics and strength are the two of your three that diminish in value in conditions like this, unpredictable bounces make the luck factor far greater.

To be honest, the result of the match was better than expected. I was expecting a couple of injuries, possibly serious.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

No, they were not. Did you watch what happened between 20-30 minutes of the game?
Today was tough, but it didn't get worse over the time, so - as tough as it was - it was playable. It did influence the game, made it unwatchable at times, but there was no lucky goal due to conditions or silly mistakes due to the same...
Not a perfect conditions, but there is no guarantee of the perfect ones in Champions League.

No silly mistakes due to conditions today? You cannot say this if you watched the match. Juve buildup play was completely impossible on the right side of the pitch.

Yesterday the conditions were somewhat even for both teams. Not playable then, not playable today.

jamescd

snowblind wrote: »

Yeah you are right that they have themselves to blame for not qualifying earlier. But there are 6 matches and the last one counts for points too. And the sixth one was a mess.

Napoli who are already 8 points behind them in the league, in a much tougher group with Arsenal and Dortmund no less, have already managed 9 points.

6 points from 5 is unforgivable. Juventus made an unholy mess of things.

snowblind

jamescd wrote: »

Napoli who are already 8 points behind them in the league, in a much tougher group with Arsenal and Dortmund no less, have already managed 9 points.

6 points from 5 is unforgivable. Juventus made an unholy mess of things.

Unforgivable and unholy are great exaggerations. Yeah Juve were struggling early this season, and they should have done better. Todays/yesterdays match doesn't change that. But they still had a chance to go through according to the rules of the competition and should have been able to finish their job in acceptable conditions. It's totally possible that they would still be out, of course. It's the unpredictable factor that should be minimized, and today the conditions were all over the place. Anyone who thinks that they would not take issue with their own team being in Juve's boots today is lying to themselves.

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

No silly mistakes due to conditions today? You cannot say this if you watched the match. Juve buildup play was completely impossible on the right side of the pitch.

Yesterday the conditions were somewhat even for both teams. Not playable then, not playable today.

I watched it live, so could very well see the difficulties. But the difficulties were on both sides. I you can't play right side, you play left. Both teams - however - were going through the middle anyway. Don't be fooled by the green side - it was "almost" as difficult to play as the rest of the pitch.
Like I said I don't feel there was an advantage to any of the teams. Disadvantage is the word here, and both teams have played in the same conditions.

And about mistakes due to conditions - there were millions of them, but none of them resulted in goal.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

I watched it live, so could very well see the difficulties. But the difficulties were on both sides. I you can't play right side, you play left. Both teams - however - were going through the middle anyway. Don't be fooled by the green side - it was "almost" as difficult to play as the rest of the pitch.
Like I said I don't feel there was an advantage to any of the teams. Disadvantage is the word here, and both teams have played in the same conditions.

So if Juve's attacking chances are reduced to 2/3 of width of the pitch, that is acceptable because "you can go from the other side"? Doesn't sound just to me.

The sides were very different. Both of them bad, but that slice that took out 1/3 of Juve attacking pitch in width was MUCH worse than the rest. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the conditions were same. But you also claimed you didn't see any silly mistakes, although they happened constantly.

I mean the point isn't even whether one was disadvantaged, it was that the conditions were unpredictable. It's supposed to be football, now it was like some game in the quirkys goodtime emporium.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

snowblind wrote: »

The conditions were better yesterday. The motivation for postponing is to play in BETTER conditions. This time the resulting conditions were not even, with unpredictable results. I know this is because the pressure to replay ASAP is huge and there are no other options - draw for knockouts is on Monday, league games over the weekend. But if Galatasaray are found inept at making the conditions better (under pitch heating not working, tractor making a huge mess), a visitor fan cannot be happy.

Brazil is different - teams will have a long long time to prepare, and the conditions will be same for both teams. The pitch today was partially unpassable and the ways of the ball became totally unpredictable. In extreme heat and humidity, it is different. Vision and passing ability are not affected, the teams will just have to prepare for the overall conditions with fitness training etc. Completely different situation.

Being able to se the lines, from a ref's point of view, would be a nessecity.

Conditions are conditions. At some point in a professional football's career, he will have to play in adverse conditions, whether he is prepared or not. FIFA/UEFA's prority will always be to make sure the game finished - they will not listen to moans.

Pitch was in awful condition, but not unplayable. Juventus had chances to score, missing of which did not come down to the pitch.

Pinturicchio

Juve made a balls of that group in the draw with Copenhagen and the first game against Galatasaray.

Having said that, the Turks definitely sabotaged the end of the pitch Juve were going to be attacking for the second half.

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

. But you also claimed you didn't see any silly mistakes, although they happened constantly.

I mean the point isn't even whether one was disadvantaged, it was that the conditions were unpredictable. It's supposed to be football, now it was like some game in the quirkys goodtime emporium.

I updated my post, just to point out that there were mistakes/lost balls, but none of them resulted in a goal. The ball was unpredictable, but - as mentioned before you have to adjust to conditions sometimes.
Guess what, football is unpredictable sometimes, otherwise Paddy Power owed me a million or more.
You might disagree with me, but the result was fair. There was no unfair advantage to the home team, they are not used to severe weather conditions like these.

wonski

Pinturicchio wrote: »

Juve made a balls of that group in the draw with Copenhagen and the first game against Galatasaray.

Having said that, the Turks definitely sabotaged the end of the pitch Juve were going to be attacking for the second half.

I would rather see the whole picture than this, if you don't mind.

snowblind

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Being able to se the lines, from a ref's point of view, would be a nessecity.

Of course. I never said that the conditions were good yesterday.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Conditions are conditions.

#insight
Conditions do not exist in a vacuum. But also their influence into the result cannot be calculated. Therefore the influence of the conditions to the result has to be minimized from the outset. This is not easy, but one way to NOT do it is to trample a quarter of the pitch with a tractor.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

At some point in a professional football's career, he will have to play in adverse conditions, whether he is prepared or not. FIFA/UEFA's prority will always be to make sure the game finished - they will not listen to moans.

It's everyone's priority to make sure the game is finished. Are you saying other factors do not matter at all? Of course they have to make sure acceptable conditions are met. That's what happened yesterday. As the pressure surmounts, it becomes more difficult to pull the trigger though. Sometimes bad decisions are made. In 2001 Juve vs Leverkusen was postponed twice, that could have happened this time too:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2001/11/28/juve_leverkusen/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Pitch was in awful condition, but not unplayable. Juventus had chances to score, missing of which did not come down to the pitch.

Yes. They also had a plethora of chances to pass, but the result of the passes were unpredictable.

I was against this match being played in these conditions when the scoreline was 0-0 which was enough for Juve to go through. The result doesn't change it, be it Juve winning or Gala.

GTR63

Pinturicchio wrote: »

That is scandalous that they played in that. Did they drive trucks through it to get it looking like that.

jamescd

snowblind wrote: »

Unforgivable and unholy are great exaggerations. Yeah Juve were struggling early this season, and they should have done better. Todays/yesterdays match doesn't change that. But they still had a chance to go through according to the rules of the competition and should have been able to finish their job in acceptable conditions. It's totally possible that they would still be out, of course. It's the unpredictable factor that should be minimized, and today the conditions were all over the place. Anyone who thinks that they would not take issue with their own team being in Juve's boots today is lying to themselves.

Even with a perfect pitch, if you leave it till the last game (an away game no less), then you're just asking for trouble. The home side will be putting you under all sorts of pressure and so might end up conceding a goal at some stage.

I will be slightly miffed alright about the state of the pitch if that was my team, but I would be more angry at the team's inability to qualify before that final game.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

I updated my post, just to point out that there were mistakes/lost balls, but none of them resulted in a goal. The ball was unpredictable, but - as mentioned before you have to adjust to conditions sometimes.

Most of the mistakes occurred in the quarter of the pitch where Juve were attacking. of course they did not result in a goal, they just resulted in missed opportunities! How is that not a factor?

Moneymaker

I can't help but feel there is a certain irony in Juve being shafted.

snowblind

jamescd wrote: »

Even with a perfect pitch, if you leave it till the last game (an away game no less), then you're just asking for trouble. The home side will be putting you under all sorts of pressure and so might end up conceding a goal at some stage.

I will be slightly miffed alright about the state of the pitch if that was my team, but I would be more angry at the team's inability to qualify before that final game.

You are right. But also: even if you do mess it up early, you still have the time to make up for it in the later games - that comes with the CL format. If it was a knockout cup format from the get go, Juve would have been out already. But also their approach would have been different.

Yeah of course, I have been pissed off at the inability of Juve to make good of what they have early in the competition. But they still deserved to play in adequate conditions here. So did Galatasaray.

snowblind

GTR63 wrote: »

That is scandalous that they played in that. Did they drive trucks through it to get it looking like that.

A tractor/tractors. Only one side of the pitch though, guess which one?

wonski

GTR63 wrote: »

That is scandalous that they played in that. Did they drive trucks through it to get it looking like that.

Pretty sure the left side was a little worse, but the contrast on the picture was upped a bit to make it worse.
Just looking at the picture on the TV now, and there is a difference, but not such a difference. Also, the green parts of the pitch were not as friendly as some of you suggested. It wasn't the worst pitch of the year, can't remember exactly the games, but I have seen worse than this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wonski wrote: »

I would rather see the whole picture than this, if you don't mind.

I'd rather see the unphotoshoppped version. I watched the match and there is no way it was that bad.

snowblind wrote: »

O
It's everyone's priority to make sure the game is finished. Are you saying other factors do not matter at all? Of course they have to make sure acceptable conditions are met. That's what happened yesterday. As the pressure surmounts, it becomes more difficult to pull the trigger though. Sometimes bad decisions are made. In 2001 Juve vs Leverkusen was postponed twice, that could have happened this time too:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2001/11/28/juve_leverkusen/


Yes. They also had a plethora of chances to pass, but the result of the passes were unpredictable.

I was against this match being played in these conditions when the scoreline was 0-0 which was enough for Juve to go through. The result doesn't change it, be it Juve winning or Gala.

1 - Whether ot not a mtch goes ahead is down to the referee. Without knowing how bad the fog was in Turin in 2001, I can't compare these cases. I'd say bad fog is more of a detrement to a game than a muddy pitch. Probably more dangerous, too, but as I said, it;s hard to know without see the case in question.

2 - I've lost count of how many game I've seen were a game where passing was effected by the pitch surface. It rains. Sometimes a lot.

3 - At no point did Juve protest to the ref, the fourth official or any UEFA observer. I'm not saying they should have stoped playing, but at least rasied a question. The had the right to object, they chose not to.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

Pretty sure the left side was a little worse, but the contrast on the picture was upped a bit to make it worse.
Just looking at the picture on the TV now, and there is a difference, but not such a difference. Also, the green parts of the pitch were not as friendly as some of you suggested. It wasn't the worst pitch of the year, can't remember exactly the games, but I have seen worse than this.

So watching from the TV you cannot see the real difference, but you KNOW the reality of the situation, how exactly?

By watching how the ball behaved in the horrible looking part, there was a massive difference . There is absolutely no way Sneijder's goal could have occurred through the messed up part of the pitch for example.

wonski

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd rather see the unphotoshoppped version. I watched the match and there is no way it was that bad.




1 - Whether ot not a mtch goes ahead is down to the referee. Without knowing how bad the fog was in Turin in 2001, I can't compare these cases. I'd say bad fog is more of a detrement to a game than a muddy pitch. Probably more dangerous, too, but as I said, it;s hard to know without see the case in question.

2 - I've lost count of how many game I've seen were a game where passing was effected by the pitch surface. It rains. Sometimes a lot.

3 - At no point did Juve protest to the ref, the fourth official or any UEFA observer. I'm not saying they should have stoped playing, but at least rasied a question. The had the right to object, they chose not to.

Juventus manager did have some issue with the referee, but this was just after the end of first half, which - according to some posters here - would make it easier for them.
Go figure:rolleyes:
I do agree with you btw, and that picure contrast is silly.

snowblind

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

2 - I've lost count of how many game I've seen were a game where passing was effected by the pitch surface. It rains. Sometimes a lot.

3 - At no point did Juve protest to the ref, the fourth official or any UEFA observer. I'm not saying they should have stoped playing, but at least rasied a question. The had the right to object, they chose not to.

2 - So today was just the same as some rain, eh? There was snow yeah, but the pitch was deeply messed up. The commentators said this was the worst they have ever seen. I have to agree.

3 - If they had complained, there would be a horde of people saying "typical italian moaning". How do you know the issue wasn't raised? Because you did not see it in TV?

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

So watching from the TV you cannot see the real difference, but you KNOW the reality of the situation, how exactly?

By watching how the ball behaved in the horrible looking part, there was a massive difference . There is absolutely no way Sneijder's goal could have occurred through the messed up part of the pitch for example.

Both 16m areas were ok, so can't see a problem there. And the goal was scored fairly, with no real advantage due to wheather.
The contrast on the left part of the picture is much higher, than the one on the left. This I can see. Smart cropping and editing makes it look worse than it was.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

Juventus manager did have some issue with the referee, but this was just after the end of first half, which - according to some posters here - would make it easier for them.
Go figure:rolleyes:

I do not understand your point here, trying to make anything look negative for Juve huh? He saw what the pitch was like when PLAYED on. He knew the team would have to attack that part for 45 mins.

Pinturicchio

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

3 - At no point did Juve protest to the ref, the fourth official or any UEFA observer. I'm not saying they should have stoped playing, but at least rasied a question. The had the right to object, they chose not to.

Conte asked the officials to stop at half time.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

Both 16m areas were ok, so can't see a problem there. And the goal was scored fairly, with no real advantage due to wheather.
The contrast on the left part of the picture is much higher, than the one on the left. This I can see. Smart cropping and editing makes it look worse than it was.

Yes I said the goal was good.

Yeah the 16m areas were not that bad. If they had cut the rest of the pitch out and glued those areas together it would have been better. But they did not. To get behind a defence AND a military training course simultaneously is a bit too much to ask, unless with a decent amount of time to prepare tactics for it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

snowblind wrote: »

2 - So today was just the same as some rain, eh? There was snow yeah, but the pitch was deeply messed up. The commentators said this was the worst they have ever seen. I have to agree.

3 - If they had complained, there would be a horde of people saying "typical italian moaning". How do you know the issue wasn't raised? Because you did not see it in TV?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

2 - I've lost count of how many game I've seen were a game where passing was effected by the pitch surface. It rains. Sometimes a lot.

3 - At no point did Juve protest to the ref, the fourth official or any UEFA observer. I'm not saying they should have stoped playing, but at least rasied a question. The had the right to object, they chose not to.

1 - I never said "some rain". I said "effected by rain" and "sometimes a lot".

2 - Juve don;t give a **** about what hoardes of people think. The give a **** about getting into the next round. They accepted the conditions before they restarted. case pretty much closed on that poitn alone.

snowblind

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - I never said "some rain". I said "effected by rain" and "sometimes a lot".

Yes. But that wasn't the cause of the bad pitch today. Yesterday it was.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

2 - Juve don;t give a **** about what hoardes of people think. The give a **** about getting into the next round. They accepted the conditions before they restarted. case pretty much closed on that poitn alone.

Can you prove how this was accepted and under what conditions? Yesterday too the game was accepted to start but not to finish. Case not closed.

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

Can you prove how this was accepted and under what conditions? Yesterday too the game was accepted to start but not to finish. Case not closed.

Yesterday? Did you watch the game at all?
There was a pergect pitch and no issues for at least 20 minutes.
The weather gone bad in a space of 5 minutes iirc.

Game over.

Moneymaker

I do feel sorry for the likes of Vidal who deserve to play in the Champions League stage.

Only themselves to blame though, anything can happen in a one off game as this game most definitely proves.

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

I do not understand your point here, trying to make anything look negative for Juve huh? He saw what the pitch was like when PLAYED on. He knew the team would have to attack that part for 45 mins.

No, I am not against Juve, or any other team. My point is some people make it look worse than it actually was. Conditions were very difficult, and one team managed to go ahead. The fact that it was a team weaker (on paper) wouldn't make a difference to me. Sport is a sport, with many variables going. Juve was playing a team who managed to get a draw away with them, so no big surprise there. The conditions will be used as an excuse, but I don't buy it.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

Yesterday? Did you watch the game at all?
There was a pergect pitch and no issues for at least 20 minutes.
The weather gone bad in a space of 5 minutes iirc.

Yes, I know, what's your point?

What I meant is that the fact that the match is allowed to start does not mean that the match can't still be abandoned during the game. IF there was some sort of an explicit agreement that "this is good enough for the match!", I would like to know how that is supposed to be a "case closed" thing, as in that cannot be reassessed during the match, just as was done yesterday?

GavRedKing

I'm happy anyway, I'd much rather play Galatasray than Juventus in the Last 16.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

snowblind wrote: »

Yes. But that wasn't the cause of the bad pitch today. Yesterday it was.


Can you prove how this was accepted and under what conditions? Yesterday too the game was accepted to start but not to finish. Case not closed.

1 - Pretty sure I've seen worse, just can't remember when.

2 - Yes, they played.

They can still conplain retrosepctively of course (be intresting to see how that goes) but even if the ref had abandoned i again, Juve have to play in the Italian League on Saturday and that pitch is not going to be much better in 24 horus time.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

No, I am not against Juve, or any other team. My point is some people make it look worse than it actually was. Conditions were very difficult, and one team managed to go ahead. The fact that it was a team weaker (on paper) wouldn't make a difference to me. Sport is a sport, with many variables going. Juve was playing a team who managed to get a draw away with them, so no big surprise there. The conditions will be used as an excuse, but I don't buy it.

You have continuously downplayed the effect of the pitch. All the commentators (clearly not partial to Juve!) on Al Jazeera were of the opinion that it's a disgrace to play there, that the conditions were not fit for a match, and that they have never seen such bad conditions. I agree with all of these. It is not some invalid and totally random exaggeration.

snowblind

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - Pretty sure I've seen worse, just can't remember when.

2 - Yes, they played.

1 - sounds legit!

2 - Yes, they played yesterday too. Then they decided to not play. This could have happened today too.

Pinturicchio

According to Conte, he and Mancini both told the UEFA delegate that the match should be stopped but "no one listened".

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

Yes, I know, what's your point?

What I meant is that the fact that the match is allowed to start does not mean that the match can't still be abandoned during the game. IF there was some sort of an explicit agreement that "this is good enough for the match!", I would like to know how that is supposed to be a "case closed" thing, as in that cannot be reassessed during the match, just as was done yesterday?

It didn't get worse during the game, so can't see a reason to postpone it again. Of course, if once again the conditions were going the way they went last night, this match would probably be postponed. But nothing major happened in the space of the 60 minutes played, so the game was finished, despite poor conditions.
I know we have a different view, but there are some rules and regulations regarding these games, most of them I don't know, but UEFA delegates and referees do know and follow them. It was in best interest to finish this game as soon as possible, and this is what happened. The winning goal was no accidental, and I can't see a reason for it to be questioned.

wonski

Pinturicchio wrote: »

According to Conte, he and Mancini both told the UEFA delegate that the match should be stopped but "no one listened".

Fortunately, or not, it is not up to the managers if the game is on or not.
I might not be a big fan of UEFA/FIFA and any others, but it was their competition the clubs are paid for, and they do set the rules.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

It didn't get worse during the game, so can't see a reason to postpone it again. Of course, if once again the conditions were going the way they went last night, this match would probably be postponed. But nothing major happened in the space of the 60 minutes played, so the game was finished, despite poor conditions.
I know we have a different view, but there are some rules and regulations regarding these games, most of them I don't know, but UEFA delegates and referees do know and follow them. It was in best interest to finish this game as soon as possible, and this is what happened. The winning goal was no accidental, and I can't see a reason for it to be questioned.

Well if this is true:

Pinturicchio wrote: »

According to Conte, he and Mancini both told the UEFA delegate that the match should be stopped but "no one listened".

The basis of this argument was invented by Princess Consuela Bananahammock - that Juve did not protest and agreed that the game was to go on. If it's not the case, the argument does not stand.

It was only in the best interest to finish the game ASAP because of UEFA's tight timelines. In 2001 the game vs Leverkusen was postponed twice. Could have happened here. The inability of UEFA to make the right decision is not a rule or regulation. It is inability, and it was detrimental to both teams ability to play the game properly. I maintained this view when the scoreline was favourable to Juventus, and I still would if Juventus had won 5-0. That was not a match of football.

Seaneh

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - Pretty sure I've seen worse, just can't remember when.

2 - Yes, they played.

They can still conplain retrosepctively of course (be intresting to see how that goes) but even if the ref had abandoned i again, Juve have to play in the Italian League on Saturday and that pitch is not going to be much better in 24 horus time.

The managers/clubs don't decide if they play the game or not, the officials do.

The managers both said the game shouldnt have started last night and asked the ref to postpone it and he ignored them. What makes you think today was any different?

mitosis

I'd forgotten this:

They now go into the Europa League and the Final will be played at the Juventus Stadium in Turin

wonski

snowblind wrote: »

Well if this is true:

The basis of this argument was invented by Princess Consuela Bananahammock - that Juve did not protest and agreed that the game was to go on. If it's not the case, the argument does not stand.

It was only in the best interest to finish the game ASAP because of UEFA's tight timelines. In 2001 the game vs Leverkusen was postponed twice. Could have happened here. The inability of UEFA to make the right decision is not a rule or regulation. It is inability, and it was detrimental to both teams ability to play the game properly. I maintained this view when the scoreline was favourable to Juventus, and I still would if Juventus had won 5-0. That was not a match of football.

Conte had some arguments with the referee after first half, not sure - however - what he said. Very likely he complained about the pitch. There was Drogba standing next to them, too.
Like said before - the game was on, and no manager or player could have stopped it.
For me it was match of football. Sloppy, unpredictable sometimes and.. you know, football. I, for one. am glad to see these kind of matches. This shows who has the heart and strength with a bit of luck to win the game.
And, as mentioned before, if Juve felt they were better, they should have settled it before. If you leave it to last game, you need a bit of luck. Galata had this just right.
Lots of emotions at the end, and apart flom sloppy parts, the goal was a pleasure to see.

wonski

mitosis wrote: »

I'd forgotten this:

They now go into the Europa League and the Final will be played at the Juventus Stadium in Turin

I hope they go there on the day. Even if it is not what they expected, they have a chance to award their supporters there.

snowblind

wonski wrote: »

For me it was match of football. Sloppy, unpredictable sometimes and.. you know, football. I, for one. am glad to see these kind of matches. This shows who has the heart and strength with a bit of luck to win the game.
And, as mentioned before, if Juve felt they were better, they should have settled it before. If you leave it to last game, you need a bit of luck. Galata had this just right.
Lots of emotions at the end, and apart flom sloppy parts, the goal was a pleasure to see.

Heh, I guess it's fine for you as you loved the result!

For me, whatever the result, the match was not football. That one side of the one half of a pitch that was trampled made passing impossible. Passing is an important part of football. It would have been barely football even without the tractor course.

The fact that UEFA agreed the game to go on is not "rules". It is UEFA making a bad decision. And you are saying that because UEFA is boss, they should not be criticized?