Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid - Champions League Final 2014 *Mod Warning Post #856

Vinz Mesrine

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Man I could find so many celebrations from this season alone that were on par but not a word was said, not even taking into account the significance of a champions league final.

It's really embarrassing that they jumped on it.

Anyway fair play to Ronaldo, Ancelotti and Madrid. Deserved to win

Find someone who celebrated a last second goal in a 4-1 win like that from this season. Anybody at all.

niallo27

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Man I could find so many celebrations from this season alone that were on par but not a word was said, not even taking into account the significance of a champions league final.

It's really embarrassing that they jumped on it.

Anyway fair play to Ronaldo, Ancelotti and Madrid. Deserved to win

You have to admit it was slightly over the top.

Chagan

Simeone sprints onto the pitch at the end of a Champion's League final to get involved in a confrontation with opposition players = Passion, He's a bit mad, That's what you get with Diego etc.

Ronaldo dares to take off his shirt after scoring a goal (admittedly not a particularly important one) = Narcissist, He's a bad winner, Lack of talent as a human etc. And is still warranting discussion almost 24 hours later.

I'm failing to see why Ronaldo's celebration is the biggest talking point of the game.

Mars Bar

Last warning. No more Ronaldo celebration talk.

SuperTortoise

That was'nt a celebration of a goal, it was a celebration of himself!

(Posted before mod)

The_Kew_Tour

Pro. F wrote: »

You don't need to meet the man to see how narcissisticly dickheadish he behaves on the football pitch. Maybe he's nice as pie when he's doing other things, maybe he's not. What's beyond doubt, and what is so bizarre for people to try to deny, is that during football games he chooses to behave like a self involved knob.

oh for the love of God would ya get the violin out

NIMAN

So to move the debate on a bit, do we think that Atleti last night were playing the 'park the bus' style of football that got Mourinho so much abuse this season?

After they got the goal they really just sat back and tried to soak it up. OK so they were missing their main forward and I do feel kinda sorry for them, but I do think that it was a good result for football last night that the team that really wanted to attack won in the end. Having said that, Real were poor last night too.

Too Tough To Die

Chagan wrote: »

Simeone sprints onto the pitch at the end of a Champion's League final to get involved in a confrontation with opposition players = Passion, He's a bit mad, That's what you get with Diego etc.

Ronaldo dares to take off his shirt after scoring a goal (admittedly not a particularly important one) = Narcissist, He's a bad winner, Lack of talent as a human etc. And is still warranting discussion almost 24 hours later.

I'm failing to see why Ronaldo's celebration is the biggest talking point of the game.

It's the biggest talking point because Simeone doesn't have an army of fanboys dragging that particular talking point on and on.

brevity

For me I didn't see it as parking the bus. They had lost their best striker and were also missing Arda Turan, another talented attacking player. They had to play to their strengths, which was to defend their lead.

Too much emphasis is played on parking the buss imo. It's perfectly fine to defend a lead.

bucketybuck

NIMAN wrote: »

So to move the debate on a bit, do we think that Atleti last night were playing the 'park the bus' style of football that got Mourinho so much abuse this season?

After they got the goal they really just sat back and tried to soak it up. OK so they were missing their main forward and I do feel kinda sorry for them, but I do think that it was a good result for football last night that the team that really wanted to attack won in the end. Having said that, Real were poor last night too.

I don't feel sorry for them at all, only one team tried to win that game so I am happy that they got their reward.

If Athletico weren't the flavour of the month I suspect people would be more critical of how they actually tried to play. I can respect the gameplan, it was perfectly designed to nullify Bale and Ronaldo, but it wasn't good football by any means, and if a British club had played like that it would definitely be called anti-football.

A goalkeeping error almost handed Athletico the victory, but thankfully the team that tried to play football got the win in the end.

Turtwig

Source: The Guardian.

Turtwig

NIMAN wrote: »

So to move the debate on a bit, do we think that Atleti last night were playing the 'park the bus' style of football that got Mourinho so much abuse this season?

After they got the goal they really just sat back and tried to soak it up. OK so they were missing their main forward and I do feel kinda sorry for them, but I do think that it was a good result for football last night that the team that really wanted to attack won in the end. Having said that, Real were poor last night too.

In the final twenty minutes they sat far too deep. They played the entire game a little slower than their usual pace. Obviously the game against Barca and subsequent celebrations affected them. I wouldn't say they parked the bus though. They defended high and pressed Madrid back even attempting to create chances. In contrast, when Chelsea played Atletico away they parked the bus. There was no pressing high, there was no real attempts to create chances.

Atleti were up until the second half rather pro-active. Then they sat too deep and were punished. It was possible fatigue and nerves that got the better of them. Simeone was urging them to push out so was Godin. So, not really a parking the bus game plan. Though for the final ten minutes it was effectively a backs to wall park the jumbo jet and don't let anyone pass at all costs! I think though given the gravity of the game that's understandable, many teams in the same position would be a bit more cautious when leading by a solitary goal in such a big game.

Let's not forget there were periods in the first half where Madrid couldn't get a kick of the ball.

Pro. F

NIMAN wrote: »

So to move the debate on a bit, do we think that Atleti last night were playing the 'park the bus' style of football that got Mourinho so much abuse this season?

After they got the goal they really just sat back and tried to soak it up. OK so they were missing their main forward and I do feel kinda sorry for them, but I do think that it was a good result for football last night that the team that really wanted to attack won in the end. Having said that, Real were poor last night too.

At least Atletico only parked the bus after they'd gone ahead and lost their main striker. I find their normal way of high pressing defending to be entertaining enough and wouldn't criticise them for that. Although I do think that the dangers of having a defensive mindset were shown up again last night. The team who took the initiative got the result and I like that because I like attacking football. But if all defensive teams were as entertaining as Athletico I would certainly be happy.

Edit: I just remembered that even after Atleti got the goal they still had some good spells of high pressing. So even more kudos to them for that.

losthorizon

Turtwig wrote: »

Source: The Guardian.

Source:Me (Its the same fountain taken last year)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90523330&postcount=56

klose

NIMAN wrote: »

So to move the debate on a bit, do we think that Atleti last night were playing the 'park the bus' style of football that got Mourinho so much abuse this season?

After they got the goal they really just sat back and tried to soak it up. OK so they were missing their main forward and I do feel kinda sorry for them, but I do think that it was a good result for football last night that the team that really wanted to attack won in the end. Having said that, Real were poor last night too.

Fair difference between defending a lead in a final without your two main attackers and starting 6 defenders in a home game where you need a goal

klose

Ha! Apparently modric had some bet/agreement that he would cut his hair if they win and he did, looks about about 12

Mars Bar

He looks less like Gail Platt now so that's a good thing!

Seaneh

Andersonisgod wrote: »

The question tonight the same as the one that plagued Real Madrid since Jose Mourinho formed this team. Do they have the guile and patience to break down an organised side who are tenacious in defending their box. It's a question that has been asked since Mourinho's side first played Levante under his stewardship and has been a nuisance since. When you build for, and then primarily work on, counter attacking football and you neglect technical ability then this is always going to be the problem.

Huge credit to Atletico. Is it always pretty? No, but the off the ball effort is a work of art.

So, eh, you were kind of very, very wrong...

How does the humble pie taste?

Turtwig

Comparing Carlo's Madrid to Mourinho's Madrid is in many ways like comparing Moyes Everton to Martinez Everton. Both decent sides, but a very different approach to the game. Carlo's Madrid were only a counter attacking side against Bayern because it was the best way to beat them and fair dues to him for setting his team up in a pragmatic fashion like that. They played open attacking football pretty much all season - and were on occasion a joy to watch.

Pro. F

Turtwig wrote: »

Comparing Carlo's Madrid to Mourinho's Madrid is in many ways like comparing Moyes Everton to Martinez Everton. Both decent sides, but a very different approach to the game. Carlo's Madrid were only a counter attacking side against Bayern because it was the best way to beat them and fair dues to him for setting his team up in a pragmatic fashion like that. They played open attacking football pretty much all season - and were on occasion a joy to watch.

You would think a Real fan would have known that.

SlickRic

the only things likeable about Atletico Madrid are their fans, and the fact they've been underdogs.

the team, and the coach, in reality, are as thoroughly dislikeable as they come.

Seaneh

SlickRic wrote: »

the only things likeable about Atletico Madrid are their fans, and the fact they've been underdogs.

the team, and the coach, in reality, are as thoroughly dislikeable as they come.

Very, very cynical style of play that people passed off as "aggressive" and "high pressure" instead of what it is, dirty. They play like their manager did, and he wasn't exactly an angel on the pitch to say the least.
He showed his true colours at the end of the game when he should have been sent straight to the stands for attempting to attack a player.

Agueroooo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO1H_iDsqkI

Skylinehead

Seaneh wrote: »

He showed his true colours at the end of the game when he should have been sent straight to the stands for attempting to attack a player.

He was sent to the stands.

Seaneh

Skylinehead wrote: »

He was sent to the stands.

Ah good, missed all that in the hooplah. Hopefully he gets a deserved ban.

Seaneh

Agueroooo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO1H_iDsqkI

That's insane.

What a surreal way to watch a match, but jaysus they didn't half make some noise when they scored.

greendom

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah good, missed all that in the hooplah. Hopefully he gets a deserved ban.

He has, 6 matches for the CL campaign next season

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

the only things likeable about Atletico Madrid are their fans, and the fact they've been underdogs.

the team, and the coach, in reality, are as thoroughly dislikeable as they come.

Seaneh wrote: »

Very, very cynical style of play that people passed off as "aggressive" and "high pressure" instead of what it is, dirty. They play like their manager did, and he wasn't exactly an angel on the pitch to say the least.
He showed his true colours at the end of the game when he should have been sent straight to the stands for attempting to attack a player.

I'd love to know how many times you have seen them play.

I've seen them play about 25 times this season and there is nothing dirty about them. In the bigger games towards the end of the season and with injuries taking a toll they used their plan b which is a tough game but they play good football most of the time.

bucketybuck

Seaneh wrote: »

Very, very cynical style of play that people passed off as "aggressive" and "high pressure" instead of what it is, dirty.

Exactly, just look at how many players took a yellow card for the team with very intentional fouls to stop a player breaking.

They were lucky there isn't a GAA style black card for professional fouls.

SlickRic

i've watched them plenty and i never disputed their great football. but there's always a pronounced cynicism to their play.

but we saw the real Simeone on Saturday night, and in many ways the underlying cynicism in his team. the fake injuries. the lying down to waste time. incredulous when there was 5 minutes injury time. the threats to Varane over a ball that was kicked to him (not at him). the moaning at every little fúcking thing.

Real do it too, I know. as do other teams. but Atletico are absolutely no different, and Simeone took the whole thing to a completely different level with his thuggish antics. no time for that bullshít. yet people complain about fúcking Ronaldo milking his celebrations a little?

lol indeed.

Seaneh

Simeone whinging about 5 minites of added time was idiotic as well seening as the goal was scored in the 3rd added minute, and if he claims where wasn't at least 4 added minutes, in a game with 6 subs and a goal + several yellows and niggly fouls then he's mental. There could easily have been 6 minutes added with all the stoppages.

SlickRic

but...but...he's passionate.

astonaidan

Why is it that if you like Ronaldo you are a United fan, it seems a ongoing theme.
Hes a machine of a player, rightly the best player in the world right now.
Who actually gives a **** about a celebration.
Delighted they won

Moneymaker

Simone went down a lot in my estimation after his antics. Mind you I have no idea where 5 minutes of injury time came from.

Nuri Sahin

Seaneh wrote: »

Simeone whinging about 5 minites of added time was idiotic as well seening as the goal was scored in the 3rd added minute, and if he claims where wasn't at least 4 added minutes, in a game with 6 subs and a goal + several yellows and niggly fouls then he's mental. There could easily have been 6 minutes added with all the stoppages.

Seeing 5 minutes go up on the board might have had a detrimental effect on the players, let alone for Simeone who was a raging inferno before that. I thought there was going to be 3 minutes of stoppage time myself.

Seaneh

Moneymaker wrote: »

Simone went down a lot in my estimation after his antics. Mind you I have no idea where 5 minutes of injury time came from.

3 minutes for Substutions alone (30 per sub).

30 - 45 seconds for first goal.

Then all the times play was stopped for freekicks and corners, all the cynical and clumsy fouls that drew yellow cards from both teams (10 yellows in the first 90 minutes).

It all adds up.

Seaneh

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Seeing 5 minutes go up on the board might have had a detrimental effect on the players, let alone for Simeone who was a raging inferno before that. I thought there was going to be 3 minutes of stoppage time myself.

I was guessing at least 5, there would have been 2.5 minutes for the substitutions in the second half alone (30 seconds each) + the one in the first half, + the goal in the first + everything else.

Skylinehead

Seaneh wrote: »

+ the one in the first half, + the goal in the first + everything else.

You do realise there's first half stoppage time?

machiavellianme

Plus, that goal and one of the subs was in the first half so would've been included in the additional minutes at half time.

Seaneh

Skylinehead wrote: »

You do realise there's first half stoppage time?

First half stoppage time is always small, and made up for in the second half stoppages. That's why you'll often see 5 minutes at the end but only 1-2 minutes at the end of the first half.

Seaneh

machiavellianme wrote: »

Plus, that goal and one of the subs was in the first half so would've been included in the additional minutes at half time.

So even if you looked at it that way you have 5 subs in the second half = 2.5 minutes + everything else.

Seriously lads, if you think there wasn't at least 5 mins of added time in the second half with all the stoppages you're mad.

And as before, the goal was scored in the 3rd minute anyway.

Skylinehead

Seaneh wrote: »

First half stoppage time is always small, and made up for in the second half stoppages. That's why you'll often see 5 minutes at the end but only 1-2 minutes at the end of the first half.

You'll often see more in the second half because more substitutes are made in the second half. First half stoppages, including subs, are dealt with at the end of the first half.

Lucas Hood

Simone just wanted the game to be over , He said if it was 3 mins injury time he'd be saying it should have been 2 mins.

thelad95

Seaneh wrote: »

3 minutes for Substutions alone (30 per sub).

30 - 45 seconds for first goal.

Then all the times play was stopped for freekicks and corners, all the cynical and clumsy fouls that drew yellow cards from both teams (10 yellows in the first 90 minutes).

It all adds up.

You realise it's called injury time. The referee doesn't have to make up for throw-ins/freekicks etc.

brevity

I was expecting 4 - 5 minutes of extra time. Substitutions and one of the Atletico players was down for about a minute or two in the second half so that would have impacted as well.

Lucas Hood

thelad95 wrote: »

You realise it's called injury time. The referee doesn't have to make up for throw-ins/freekicks etc.

Eh no.

keane2097

Seaneh wrote: »

First half stoppage time is always small, and made up for in the second half stoppages. That's why you'll often see 5 minutes at the end but only 1-2 minutes at the end of the first half.

lol, wat?

Nuri Sahin

Seaneh wrote: »

I was guessing at least 5, there would have been 2.5 minutes for the substitutions in the second half alone (30 seconds each) + the one in the first half, + the goal in the first + everything else.

In an ideal world, considering the things that go on in most games - general time wasting, six subs, etc,, etc. Well, 5 minutes should be the norm in most games. But given that it's usually 2-3 minutes, I was taken a back. I could only imagine how the players felt seeing those 5 minutes go up. It was clear they were on their last legs being under the cosh for the last 20 minutes (25 minutes if including stoppage time), the emotional roller coaster of the past 7-14 days of beating Chelsea, winning the title in Barca in dramatic fashion and then the CL Final itself probably played it's part mentally, let alone physically. Missing their two main attacking sparks in Diego Costa and Arda Turan (yes, Diego Costa played, but I'm sure you get what I mean), both influence the game by their tracking back from the front pretty much too let alone their attacking play. Adrian was woeful. Villa was sensational for 60-70 minutes, but at 32, his legs went. There's no defending Simeone's actions, though it's hardly surprising if you knew anything about the man before he took over at Atleti, especially as a player. Great player, very passionate, but he's always been on the tipping point. The two additional goals in extra time were just kicking a man when he was down. Not absolving him of blame at all, but again, it was hardly surprising he snapped, at least it wasn't for me anyway.

Seaneh

Maybe If Raul Garcia hadn't taken more time to stroll off the field than all 3 of Real's subs combined, it wouldn't have ben quite so long?
Maybe If Gabbi hadn't rolled around on the ground for no reason in the 80th minute and the Atelti players hadn't started pushing and shoving and cause the game to be stopped for the guts of 2 minutes, it wouldn't have been as long.

But 5 minutes was a fair assessment of time added, even if we only take the second half into account.

Seaneh

thelad95 wrote: »

You realise it's called injury time. The referee doesn't have to make up for throw-ins/freekicks etc.

It's actually called stoppage time. It's for stoppages.