Atletico Madrid v Chelsea, UCL SF, k/o 7:45pm UTV

gosplan

greendom wrote: »

Ah now if we can't puss and moan then Boards would cease to exist.

Very true.

grumpymunster

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

How do chelsea plan on scoring in the second leg so?

In the immortal words of Brian Clough it only takes a second to score a goal. As I am not TSHO and do not know him personally I don't know what tactics he will employ next week. We do generally play more attacking football at home but this can be intermixed with caution as it was against PSG. So perhaps defensively attacking whilst cautious?

Bohrio

Two things after watching the game last night, first, I am glad that Atletico got a taste of their own medicine and second that no matter what team he manages or who he plays against, Mourinho will never take any risks.

This is why I never liked him as a manager, sure it gets the job done but there is no spectacle. He plays as if it was a chess game, to win, no matter at what cost, if he has to park the bus he will (as he did last night) and not a bother in the world. And when two team who played similarly play against each other then this is what happens, that they dont know what to do with the ball. This was probably the most boring CL semifinal I have seen in year.

Someone said that some of us would trade places with Chelsea in a heartbeat, well I know I wouldnt, I rather see my team lose than win like this (unless my team was a small size team that has never won anything or something similar), but for a team the size and quality of chelsea there is no excuse. But then again Chelsea has been playing like this for the last few years and with quite a success (I still remember that semifinal? against Barcelona when they parked the bus again against barcelona, I think Barca shot a total of 40 something shots on goal vs 4 from chelsea and Chelsea won in the end)

But back to Mou, I have to say you rarely see Mourinho not parking the bus when he plays against a similar size team (or even smaller ones), in fact, right now I can only remember that time he played Barcelona in the Nou Camp during his first season with Real Madrid and that didnt turned out very well for him, he learnt his lesson and hence why everytime he has an important game he plays defensively (and he is excellent at organizing the defense).

But then again this is why, in my opinion (and I will likely be the only one) Mourinho has always been over rated, his ideas are not innovative, his tactics are not related to create footbal but to destroy it is more like if you were playing a board game, not my cup of tea. I am not saying he is not a smart guy or a good coach, I just think he should be braver and try to create his own football style.

Another thing about Mou as well, and this was also mentioned by another boardsie is that, after a game, during the press conference, I have never heard him talk about football, if he wins he might quickly go through it and if he loses, he will blame the referee or a player, anyone but him. I have even seen him go into a press conference and say, I only have one thing to say " the referee should be proud of him self" and then he would leave? I mean, you would expect that, in a press conference after a football game, the coach of one of the teams will actually talk about football and not about something else... I dont know, maybe its normal in the UK... and if you ask him something he doesnt like, he leaves...

Anyway, we shall see what happens in the second leg, I personally think 0 - 0 is not a good result for Chelsea, and I know that Atletico will park the bus in london so I have the feeling that the next game is going to be more of the same... my money is on 0 - 0.... oh and I am sorry for the guy who had to pay ppv to watch yesterday's game.

Hammer Archer

gosplan wrote: »

Chelsea's style is their perogative.

Mourhino is effective and he doesn't give a sh1t about anything else. And he doesn't have to.

If you don't like watching it, then switch off. I did after 30 mins. It's a trick I learned years ago watching Rafa and Jose go head to head in the CL.

Don't piss and moan about it though. Pragmatic managers win cups.

My only gripe is that we're still calling him TSHO. I mean, he's not happy at all! Moyes probably smiled more than him so far this season.

Maybe you should send that to Mourinho himself after other teams play that way against him. All he does is piss and moan when other teams set up against Chelsea the way he did yesterday.
As I intimated last night, I've no problem with the way he played last night. It's the sheer, bare faced hypocrisy he comes out with when the shoe's on the other foot that I can't stand about him. And the fact that he's never called out on it by the media.

rob316

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Chelsea are unbeaten over two legs in Europe since February 2011 doing just that when required. Two European trophies in successive seasons and now a CL semi final so I'd say it's already proven as a template for success. Mourinho's Inter utilised the same strategy to dump out Guardiolaball in 2011 also. Organisation, discipline and heart will always have the ability to defeat more technical opposition in a cup encounter, and rightly so.

Great teams are remembered for there attacking football. Barcelona, Brazil, Spain, Liverpool 70/80's, Real Madrid and the like.
No one will remember Chelsea and this win at all costs football.

Its football not a game of chess, it doesn't have to be so tactical.
I admire managers who play the game how it should be played.

fozz10

i know this was posted else where but cheers for the wave costa!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rowVzoEnqA

GavRedKing

rob316 wrote: »

Great teams are remembered for there attacking football. Barcelona, Brazil, Spain, Liverpool 70/80's, Real Madrid and the like.
No one will remember Chelsea and this win at all costs football.

Its football not a game of chess, it doesn't have to be so tactical.
I admire managers who play the game how it should be played.

LOL.

I prefer my managers to win, no matter what the cost.

Good football can only get ya so far, you have to dig in and rough it out at times, balls to the wall attacking would have seen us lose last night.

Turtyturd

Turtyturd wrote: »

Chelsea to lose but still be in with a shout for the 2nd leg, and Hazard to pick up a knock which rules him out for at least a week will do me.

Close enough.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

LOL.

I prefer my managers to win, no matter what the cost.

Good football can only get ya so far, you have to dig in and rough it out at times, balls to the wall attacking would have seen us lose last night.

As it is said "show me a good loser and I will show you a loser".

Almost single handed Chelsea are keeping 4 English teams in the Champions league and are the highest ranked English team in Europe. None too shabby really for a chess team.

Bohrio

GavRedKing wrote: »

LOL.

I prefer my managers to win, no matter what the cost.

Good football can only get ya so far, you have to dig in and rough it out at times, balls to the wall attacking would have seen us lose last night.

The win at all costs attitude is perfectly acceptable but IMO only someone who is desperate to win will agree to that.

Good football (depending on what you consider good football) can get you very far, you only have to look at the last 6 years (barcelona and bayern).

Teams like chelsea will not be remembered. I rather my team will be remembered for doing something great or innovative. Here you have Holland in the 1970s, they are still remember with their total football despite never winning a world cup... no body remember who won that WC but they do remember them...

Nerdlingr

19th Century football.

grumpymunster

Bohrio wrote: »

The win at all costs attitude is perfectly acceptable but IMO only someone who is desperate to win will agree to that.

Good football (depending on what you consider good football) can get you very far, you only have to look at the last 6 years (barcelona and bayern).

Teams like chelsea will not be remembered. I rather my team will be remembered for doing something great or innovative. Here you have Holland in the 1970s, they are still remember with their total football despite never winning a world cup... no body remember who won that WC but they do remember them...

Which one the one in 1974 that Germany won or the one in 1978 that Argentina won?

Don't kid yourself winners are always remembered.

Bohrio

grumpymunster wrote: »

Which one the one in 1974 that Germany won or the one in 1978 that Argentina won?

Don't kid yourself winners are always remembered.

Now seriously, winners are not always remember, only when you google them or when you look at a table but they are not "remembered", in fact, they are only remembered by a few, and mostly the fans, nobody else. And also, very few remember when "total football" happened, or if they won a WC or not (some people might even think they did) but is the legacy behind.

1974 germany and 1978 Argentina, how often they are spoken about how they changed football etc etc...

They are a reference to modern football you are right....

Look, I understand for a team who has never marked a style or has never been a reference it is ok to win no matter what... but once you get over it and realized that you can be so much more then you will start saying, yo know what, now I want to win with class

They will get there

grumpymunster

First World Cup I remember watching was 1970 and have a good memory of all of them since so please dont be so insulting, just because you dont remember does not mean others dont.

You obviously have little knowledge of football the Argentinian team that won in 1978 had some wonderful flair players such as Kempes and Ardilles (later of Spurs fame) they actually were a great side to watch. The German team of 1974 were a model of efficiency really but what people who dont know is that the world cup of 1974 was perhaps the worse weather ever endured during a world cup which played very much into hands of the Germans and hindered the Dutch who found it difficult to adapt their football ultimately to the conditions.

So back to your google history boy

MisterAnarchy

Last nights match brought back memories of the two CL semi finals in 2005 and 2007 where Mourinho and Benitez both tried to outdo each other in their negativity producing two of the worst semi finals of all time for any neutrals.

Bohrio

grumpymunster wrote: »

First World Cup I remember watching was 1970 and have a good memory of all of them since so please dont be so insulting, just because you dont remember does not mean others dont.

You obviously have little knowledge of football the Argentinian team that won in 1978 had some wonderful flair players such as Kempes and Ardilles (later of Spurs fame) they actually were a great side to watch. The German team of 1974 were a model of efficiency really but what people who dont know is that the world cup of 1974 was perhaps the worse weather ever endured during a world cup which played very much into hands of the Germans and hindered the Dutch who found it difficult to adapt their football ultimately to the conditions.

So back to your google history boy

So you remember because you lived through it, ask someone younger then and see what they have to say.

I know Mario Kempes, actually I met him once while I was in Buenos Aires, I know quite a lot about WC and South American football, from the first WC in montevideo in 1930 until recently.

I know about that well organized germany of Beckenbauer, they did play a very effective football indeed but still, no body today says, lets play like argentina in 1978, or, moderm X team today is following up the famous Argentina 1978 football that captivated everyone back then...

And you are missing my point. You are into football, this is a football forum so it is expected, but again, I am referring to setting a footprint in football, like Celtic did in the past, or Man United, or Real Madrid, or Milan, or Ajax or Barcelona, or Bayern, those teams will be remembered, who is going to remember this team?

grumpymunster

The one where ManU beat Barca 1-0 over two legs does not count I suppose as TSHO was not involved to strangle football.

grumpymunster

Bohrio wrote: »

So you remember because you lived through it, ask someone younger then and see what they have to say.

I know Mario Kempes, actually I met him once while I was in Buenos Aires, I know quite a lot about WC and South American football, from the first WC in montevideo in 1930 until recently.

I know about that well organized germany of Beckenbauer, they did play a very effective football indeed but still, no body today says, lets play like argentina in 1978, or, moderm X team today is following up the famous Argentina 1978 football that captivated everyone back then...

And you are missing my point. You are into football, this is a football forum so it is expected, but again, I am referring to setting a footprint in football, like Celtic did in the past, or Man United, or Real Madrid, or Milan, or Ajax or Barcelona, or Bayern, those teams will be remembered, who is going to remember this team?

Pointless discussion - of that German team Beckenbauer is remembered as being the best player of his (or perhaps any) generation in his position. Gert Muller is remembered as being one of the finest goal poachers of all time. That German team laid the foundation for the Munich side that won 3 European Cups on the bounce, yea but right no one would remember them.

I dont remember the great Huddersfield and Arsenal sides of the 1930's but they were defining, all that proves is that whilst I am old I am not that old but I do realise they had a part to play in the shaping of the game. Your argument is nonsense.

Eight Ball

GavRedKing wrote: »

LOL.

I prefer my managers to win, no matter what the cost.

Good football can only get ya so far, you have to dig in and rough it out at times, balls to the wall attacking would have seen us lose last night.

"Rough it out at times" by all means but it's the fact Chelsea under Mourinho are unbearably negative a lot/most of the time that grinds peoples gears.

Bohrio

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Last nights match brought back memories of the two CL semi finals in 2005 and 2007 where Mourinho and Benitez both tried to outdo each other in their negativity producing two of the worst semi finals of all time for any neutrals.

So I guess grumpymunster is right... this team will be remembered after all

Bohrio

grumpymunster wrote: »

I dont remember the great Huddersfield and Arsenal sides of the 1930's but they were defining, all that proves is that whilst I am old I am not that old but I do realise they had a part to play in the shaping of the game. Your argument is nonsense.

I suppose you are right, 30 years from now people will remember this semifinal and this Chelsea as being the base for the future football generations to come, they will set the standards for things to come, many coaches will follow this style of play that has been around for decades because what matters is winning no matter what...

This is why I like teams like the current Ajax etc, They might not be the best but at least they are true to waht they believe.. and once in a while, and outstanding team comes out, like Johan's or Van Basten's Ajax.

There is no point in arguing because you aer obviously missing my point and you are also getting a bit angry. I suppose you are do enjoy this type of football, that's fine, whatever you like.

So 30 years from now we will be watching games like the game yesterday, I certainly hope not...

MaroonAndGreen

A list of teams Chelsea have beaten in the knockout rounds of European competition in the past three years:
Napoli
Benfica
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Sparta Prague
Steaua Bucharest
Rubin Kazan
FC Basel
Benfica
Galatasaray
Paris Saint-Germain

And here is a list of the teams the rest of England has managed to better in that time:
Porto (Manchester City)
Ajax (Manchester United)
Metalist Kharkiv (Newcastle)
Anzhi Makhachkala (Newcastle)
Lyon (Tottenham Hotspur)
Inter Milan (Tottenham Hotspur)
Olympiacos (Manchester United)
Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (Tottenham Hotspur)

NIMAN

The only way this Chelsea outfit will be remembered is in the same way as the Inter team of catenaccio will be remembered.

i.e. not in a positive way.

grumpymunster

NIMAN wrote: »

The only way this Chelsea outfit will be remembered is in the same way as the Inter team of catenaccio will be remembered.

i.e. not in a positive way.

Not by Chelsea supporters

stiffler123

I don't get the Chelsea hate in the thread. A 0-0 away to Atletico is a great result when you consider Jose's record at Stamford Bridge. Results are more important than attractive football.

witnessmenow

I fully agree with winning at all costs, the thing the bothers me about it tough is Jose comments on their game against West Ham earlier in the year:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/9140653/jose-mourinho-west-ham-play-football-from-19th-century

"A football match is about two teams playing and this match was only one team playing and another team not playing.

"At the same time I told him also this is not Premier League, this is not the best league in the world, this is football from the 19th century."

Agueroooo

the words medicine and taste spring to mind.

MaroonAndGreen

The Jose hypocrite argument is stupid as he clearly says to the media the opposite to what hes actually thinking sometimes, to get a reaction etc.

Like Jose saying Chelsea couldnt win the league, I think we all know he didnt mean it deep down.

Of course he knew he was going to have to park the bus later in the season at the time he made the comments about West Ham, he said that to deflect away from Chelsea's poor performance, didnt give a shít if he looked like a hypocrite or not.

Panthro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In acting

No, he wasn't. Before his injury he was the rock that held the defence together. He played unreal last night, suburb player.

grumpymunster

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

The Jose hypocrite argument is stupid as he clearly says to the media the opposite to what hes actually thinking sometimes, to get a reaction etc.

Like Jose saying Chelsea couldnt win the league, I think we all know he didnt mean it deep down.

Of course he knew he was going to have to park the bus later in the season at the time he made the comments about West Ham, he said that to deflect away from Chelsea's poor performance, didnt give a shít if he looked like a hypocrite or not.

No the ignorance is from those referring to TSHO's comments after the happy hammers match. He clearly stated he would do the same just that is not great headlines is it

TSHO DOES WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD yea not really a good headline, and of course those who dislike us because we are successful will take whatever they can to knock us.

eagle eye

Panthro wrote: »

No, he wasn't. Before his injury he was the rock that held the defence together. He played unreal last night, suburb player.

Suburb player? Love it!

grumpymunster

eagle eye wrote: »

Suburb player? Love it!

He does live in leafy Surrey

Turtwig

Andersonisgod wrote: »

The complaints here are bordering on ridiculous. We tried matching fire with fire against Atletico Madrid a couple of seasons ago, it was a disaster then and they have improved since. Mourinho was never going to go to the Vicente Calderon and try to out-football Atletico Madrid to get a result, more equipped sides than Chelsea have tried and failed at that.

The defensive shape was perfect. A lot of people will say that anybody can stick 10 men behind a ball but it's the details and nuances that get results and in every respect Mourinho got it right. He successfully controlled the Atletico overloads, he handled the worry about Azpilicueta and Cole, in particular, being caught out in the air, he condensed the space in front of the defence and between the centre backs. At times Costa was surrounded by a Chelsea triangle which was very similar to how Mourinho stopped Drogba's effectiveness when his Inter side beat Chelsea in the Champions League in 2010.

Without Hazard and Eto'o, with Cech going off early and Terry hobbling off two thirds of the way through, he leaves Madrid with a result which gives us a real chance of reaching the final. Does he have the advantage in the tie? Debatable, but we are in a better position now than we were against PSG, if he can get Hazard and Eto'o back for the second leg then tonight's performance will be viewed in retrospect as a masterclass.

In the press conferences he is box office, the great entertainer, but when it comes to matches the man is purely about winning, that's exactly what his team has every chance of doing in this tie on Wednesday night.

Were Chelsea playing Barcelona, Bayern or City last night I'd agree. The thing is they weren't they were playing against Atletico Madrid. Comparing games from years gone by is wrong. Chelsea were different then so too were Atletico. Every game has different circumstances. The question one needs to ask is whether they need to do this against Atletico for the entire game. Atletico aren't exactly a breaking down the wall specialists. Neither are Chelsea. It's possible to still attack a team while still maintaining a solid defensive core. Chelsea were excessively negative and the only justification I can see is one Wenger opined years ago. It's a efficient model of play. The team with the ball will inevitable have to move their players more if they want to get some penetration. With the game against Liverpool the weekend, I'm sure keeping his players fresh was there on Jose's mind too.

Also, although the result may say 0-0 I don't even believe Chelsea performed their roles correctly. At times they sat far too deep. Atleti just didn't have a clue how to go about breaking them down. Sure you can make the fallacious argument that the result says otherwise but then would you also make the argument that if a Barca team won with a cleansheet their defence was immaculate? Execution and result don't always go hand in hand.

Atletico are a good team, there's no denying that but Chelsea showed them far too much respect. Now, I'm not suggesting Chelsea should go toe to toe with them (though I do believe they'd be more than a match at that) I'm suggesting they should at least be balanced and proactive. If they were playing Bayern then that approach would be correct provided they actually look like they're set up for counter attacking. Watching last night, I didn't even get the feeling that Chelsea wanted to execute counter attacks. That was what I found most bizarre. Hence, my earlier remark about efficiency and preserving stamina during congested fixtures.

Panthro

eagle eye wrote: »

Suburb player? Love it!

Awwhh.. thanks brah!;)

Bohrio

I am not sure what you mean but successful but fair enough, I suppose it depends to what team you compare them to.

And remember, you draw 0-0 by plating the bus against a, in theory, much inferior team (at least budgetwise), there is nothing to be proud off. I am happy it happened to Atletico as that is how they always play anyway

I mean, we are not talking about a second division team who managed to draw to 0 against a big 1st division team, are we? Because it does kind of feel that way...

I am pie

Job done, I tip my hat to Jose even though I don't support Chelsea or in truth have that much affinity for them.

No goals conceded, level playing field at home where they or just about unbeatable despite a recent hickup.

Extremely professional job and from that perspective, impressive. He has managed to steer the team into position to be favourites to get to the champs league final. If I was a Chelsea fan (washing my mouth out with soap!) I would be delighted with that performance. I thought they'd at best come back 2-1 down with a goal to cling too.

Mystified by people who think that coming back from AM with a clean sheet is bad result. It ain't always entertainment, it's results that matter. If they get to a final the bus parking will be forgotten.

United or City would swap places with them in a heartbeat.

jacool

I am pie wrote: »

Job done, I tip my hat to Jose even though I don't support Chelsea or in truth have that much affinity for them.

If they get to a final the bus parking will be forgotten.

IMO - If they get to the final, they'll just park the bus again, and ruin the spectacle. I hope Atletico get through, just so that there'll a "better" game of football in the final.

BarcodeMuncher

jacool wrote: »

IMO - If they get to the final, they'll just park the bus again, and ruin the spectacle. I hope Atletico get through, just so that there'll a "better" game of football in the final.

Atletico don't exactly play expansive football themselves..

I am pie

jacool wrote: »

IMO - If they get to the final, they'll just park the bus again, and ruin the spectacle. I hope Atletico get through, just so that there'll a "better" game of football in the final.

No doubt, Jose knows they aren't able to win an open match against Real or Bayern. He would close them down and restrict the pace of the game for sure. I would hate to watch it as a neutral.

Thinking back to Liverpool's 2005 win, we had to shut a lot of teams down as we did not have the best footballing side in the tournament. Do I care about that now? Not a jot. It doesn't even register. We won it. End of. That's how Chelsea fans no doubt feel about their triumph or Man U in 2009. Horrible finals both of them, but job done, they won, the supporters are happy and memories of the actual matches fade.

Winning pretty is the ultimate goal, but winning is the primary requirement.

Nerdlingr

Its not that chelsea played ugly and parked the bus last night, thats to be expected playing away from home in a Cl semi-final. Its that Mourinho will then whine about the likes of West Ham or Sunderland or whoever parking the bus and playing 19th century football in Stamford Bridge. Cant have it both ways. He's a hypocrite and his team play a dull brand of football that gets results, plain and simple.

K-9

I am pie wrote: »

No doubt, Jose knows they aren't able to win an open match against Real or Bayern. He would close them down and restrict the pace of the game for sure. I would hate to watch it as a neutral.

Thinking back to Liverpool's 2005 win, we had to shut a lot of teams down as we did not have the best footballing side in the tournament. Do I care about that now? Not a jot. It doesn't even register. We won it. End of. That's how Chelsea fans no doubt feel about their triumph or Man U in 2009. Horrible finals both of them, but job done, they won, the supporters are happy and memories of the actual matches fade.

Winning pretty is the ultimate goal, but winning is the primary requirement.

The stats posted earlier showing the amount of 0-0's and 1-0's are pretty telling though. I suppose that's his style same as Pep has his and it is effective.

Still, I'd prefer watching a Rodgers style team in a CL S/F rather than Rafa's.

grumpymunster

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Its not that chelsea played ugly and parked the bus last night, thats to be expected playing away from home in a Cl semi-final. Its that Mourinho will then whine about the likes of West Ham or Sunderland or whoever parking the bus and playing 19th century football in Stamford Bridge. Cant have it both ways. He's a hypocrite and his team play a dull brand of football that gets results, plain and simple.

Did you actually read or listen to TSHO's post match interview V west Ham, because I really don't think you did.

BarcodeMuncher

grumpymunster wrote: »

Did you actually read or listen to TSHO's post match interview V west Ham, because I really don't think you did.

People seem to overlook the fact he praised West Ham and claimed he would do the same in their position, but ahh shure

grumpymunster

BarcodeMuncher wrote: »

People seem to overlook the fact he praised West Ham and claimed he would do the same in their position, but ahh shure

Thats it never let the truth get in the way of a good story, less so if you are slagging Chelsea or TSHO

Panthro

grumpymunster wrote: »

Did you actually read or listen to TSHO's post match interview V west Ham, because I really don't think you did.

BarcodeMuncher wrote: »

People seem to overlook the fact he praised West Ham and claimed he would do the same in their position, but ahh shure

Jose praise don't sell papers boys!

NIMAN

Real or Bayern will get through to the final, and do it in a way that 99% of the football watching public will enjoy watching.

If Chelsea get to the final, their own fans will be over the moon, the rest of the footballing world will be cheering on whoever plays them in the final. Its a results business ok, but you can get results playing the game in a half proper manner.

podge79

chelsea won the CL/EC in 2012 playing basically the same way... playing to their strengths

NIMAN

Well its a sad state of affairs that one of the worlds top teams, who have spent vast money on transfers, and whose wage bill would be among the highest in the world, have to resort to playing that brand of football.

Panthro

NIMAN wrote: »

Well its a sad state of affairs that one of the worlds top teams, who have spent vast money on transfers, and whose wage bill would be among the highest in the world, have to resort to playing that brand of football.

It's an absolute fcukin' disgrace Joe.
A team with a strong defensive record playing to their strengths, and they in a final an all.
They should be out there getting whopped by a team with a superior attacking threat such as your Reals or your Bayerns, and not sitting in defending well and waiting for their opportunity to attack.

It's no way to play football Joe, it's a fcukin' disgrace.
Outraged Joe, outraged!:mad:

:pac:

K-9

NIMAN wrote: »

Well its a sad state of affairs that one of the worlds top teams, who have spent vast money on transfers, and whose wage bill would be among the highest in the world, have to resort to playing that brand of football.

The managerial merry go round hasn't helped in that regard. If it gets Jose to a CL final he'll have the last laugh, if it doesn't others can point to him never getting Chelsea to a final! Football is simplistic and easy to define like that.