Liverpool - Chelsea Before/During/After Thread

MisterAnarchy

The football was not abysmal.

Yes it was ,it was utter rubbish unless you are a Liverpool fan .
Liverpool beat Chelsea at their own game and Mourinho is a bad loser.
Chelsea have been a bore to watch this season in most of their matches.
Grinding out win after win,they remind me of George Graham's Arsenal.
I am delighted they are out are they robbed Barcelona of victory .
Milan will be highly favoured for the final but they are an overated team and all the pressure will be on them.

KdjaCL

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Milan will be highly favoured for the final but they are an overated team and all the pressure will be on them.

Gah Milan are not in the final ffs if anything is to be learned from alleged **** teams getting to the final is that PSV are not exactly out yet.


kdjac

galwaydude

heres hoping PSV win tonight 3:0, remember last season when lost 4:0 away to la coruna and PSV were very unlucky last week.

PHB

Baros did fairly much nothing last night

The pace to get onto that ball from Gerrard and the compose to flick it over him I think might earn him a little respect, just a little.

---

Advantage can be played on for anther 3 mins of attacking and if no advantage is found the ref can call it back for a peno.

---

CHelsea play boring football, its how it works.
Just look at this.
http://skysports.planetfootball.com/list.asp?hlid=274150&CPID=8&CLID=8&lid=&title=Chelsea+set+for+records&channel=Premiership

United scored 97 in the 99 year, their best year.
Arsenal scored 73 last year.
Chelsea have only scored 67 this year.
It's ****ing amazing football, but lets not pretend its Barca or Real Madrid or something


---
Milan?

First off they are going to win?
You see em shut up shopp against United in the San Siro? They always have 6 behind the ball, and let the other 4 attack. Its absolutly unreal play, one goal and its over.

They are always crap. They always look crap. They always look like they are going to get hammered some time.
But they don't. They are always lucky. When you are always lucky, eventually it aint look anymore

---
If they score first Liverpool lose, I guarentee it.
Liverpool will have chances to score, its whether they take em or not.
p.s. Milan's attack doesn't rely on Shev's brilliance. You ever seen Crespo Seedorf or Kaka play?

Liverpool can match Milan in defense, maybe even in midfield, but in attacks, they are incomparable.
Garcia to Seedorf
Risse to Pirlo
Gerrard to Kaka
Cisse to Crespo
Baros to Shevchenko
There is only one battle there tha tmight even be a fair fight.

But that said, if Milan don't score in the first half, I expect liverpool to create chances, its just whether or not Cisse/Baros/Gerrard/Garcia will take em.

Ardent

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Yes it was ,it was utter rubbish unless you are a Liverpool fan .
Liverpool beat Chelsea at their own game and Mourinho is a bad loser.
Chelsea have been a bore to watch this season in most of their matches.
Grinding out win after win,they remind me of George Graham's Arsenal.
I am delighted they are out are they robbed Barcelona of victory .
Milan will be highly favoured for the final but they are an overated team and all the pressure will be on them.

Milan were crap against PSV last week and the 2-0 scoreline flattered them. Apparently they were muck in Serie A at the weekend too and managed to score two goals from their only two shots on target to come from behind and nick a 2-1 win.

I can see PSV turning them over tonight.

KdjaCL

First off they are going to win?

I dont think any team can beat Milan over 2 legs this season, they are too good at not making mistakes. They will more than likley win 1-0 tonight but i also didnt think Pool would beat <insert last CL 4 teams here>.

If Milan do get to the final i think they can be beaten over 90 minutes if they are forced to play.

kdjac

redspider

The football was not abysmal.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Yes it was ,it was utter rubbish unless you are a Liverpool fan .
Liverpool beat Chelsea at their own game and Mourinho is a bad loser.

It depends on what your definition of abysmal is. If abysmal (a rating of 0) is equivalent to the worst game of football you have ever seen, and lets say brilliant (a rating of 10) is equivalent to the best game of football you have ever seen, where do you rate this game? zero?

For me and for many footballing neutrals, its not always about goals. There was good play on the night, and it was not a 10-man defence like a San Marino or a Luxembourg. I rate the game at somewhere around a 7. There was good football at times, good defending football at times. And football is a game about two teams, attacking and defence.

If you compare it to say the 4-3 win that Southampton had against Norwich, how does it rate? That game had more goals, more incident, but was the football in that game better or worse than the match last night?

Far too often after close games like this we hear flippant remarks that so-and-so were rubbish. Teams can be stopped playing, and although not pretty at times and for many, if there are no goals then low on entertainment, football is a battle at both ends. And if you play and enjoy your football, you will recognise the qualities that were in that game last night.

Redspider

uberwolf

KdjaC wrote:

If Milan do get to the final i think they can be beaten over 90 minutes if they are forced to play.

kdjac

PSV had half a dozen finishable chances against Milan in the second half last week. They seriously exposed them at times. So did Inter in the second leg - ripped off such as they were.

eirebhoy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not quite what you are looking for but a good rendition

This is better:
http://www.geocities.com/nshnsl2222/celtic-juve7.mpg

uberwolf

[image]http://members.boards.ie/uberwolf/priceless6yc.jpg[/image]

poss nsfw - depending on how strict they are

Horsefumbler

woooo!

We can beat milan or psv tbh. Thought they were a little bit negative in the going forward end of things but maybe if they had gone a goal down they would have more attacking. Who knows. Anyway good to see the underdog doing well!

cregser

I don't think Milan are overated. HOW can you overate a team that has Shevchenko, Crespo, Inzaghi, Tommasson, Kaká, Rui Costa, Seedorf, Pirlo, Stam, Maldini, and Cafu???

They are a ****ing amazing team capable of tearing any team apart. I heard a description of them that they pass and pass the ball around, teasing the opposition. Then they knock it up to Shevchenko who plays with it like a kitten with a ball of whool, gets bored and throws it in the back of the net.

But form is everything in football. And any team can be beaten on a bad day. But Milan win 2-0 on a bad day... The fact PSV missed so many chances in the last leg says alot about them aswell.

Yeah Milan lost 4-0 to Deportivo La Coruna in the Riazor last year at the QF stage. But Depor have played like a team possesed when at home over the years. Don't see Milan making the same mistake.

Milan for the final.

Keano_sli

Haven't seen any clear picture to show the ball was over the line yet, does anyone have links to a site that might show this?
The game was fairly intense and enjoyable in a "ehat the **** is happening?" kind of way.
Milan for the final though, if there's any justice, a team 33 points behind the winner of the domestic league winning the champions league, you're having a laff!

MisterAnarchy

a team 33 points behind the winner of the domestic league winning the champions league, you're having a laff!

Well Bayer Leverkusen almost won the Champions League yet just escaped relegation the following season.

redspider

In terms of whether the CL winners should qualify or not, Lennart Johansson of Uefa would favour allowing a 5th English team in, IF (iff) the need is there, ie: Liverpool win the CL and do not finish in the top-4. It would have to be passed by the Uefa organisation but there is strong support it seems.

Clearly, when teams down through the years have won the CL or the European Cup equivalent, their run in that competition may have affected their league performance. Also, a year is a long time in football and teams performances can change between one season and the next. Thus, the winner of the CL may not necessarily be the best team in Europe at that time or indeed the best in their league at that time, it just means that they qualified for the CL from the results of one season and the season after went on to win a follow-on competition, which is also a different two-legged format. There is some luck involved as it depends on the draw, etc. It is not a league. The CL should in fact not be called a league at all but a Cup.

Some English winners of the past and their league positions have been as follows:

30.05.84 Liverpool FC 1-1 AS Roma
Finished 1st the same season in the league, 13 pts ahead
of 2nd place Southampton

26.05.82 Aston Villa FC 1-0 FC Bayern München
Finished 11th the same season, 30 pts behind Liverpool and
also behind Swansea City!

27.05.81 Liverpool FC 1-0 Real Madrid CF
Finished 5th the same season, 9 pts behind Villa

28.05.80 Nottingham Forest FC 1-0 Hamburger SV
Finished 5th the same season, 12 pts behind Liverpool

30.05.79 Nottingham Forest FC 1-0 Malmö FF
Finished 2nd the same season, 8 pts behind Liverpool

10.05.78 Liverpool FC 1-0 Club Brugge KV
Finished 2nd the same season, 7 pts behind Forest

25.05.77 Liverpool FC 3-1 VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
Finished 1st, just 1 point ahad of Man City


Historically, the team that won the CL/European Cup got automatic qualification. That was fair at the time. As Uefa moved from a Champions format to the top-teams format, eg: the top-2, then the top-3 and then the top-4 in some leagues, it meant that usually the winner also qualified through their position in their home league. This was mainly due to the fact that football success now changes more slowly per season than it used to when there was less money differential in the sport.

So for example, Villa won the english league, then went on to win the European Cup, but that same season they were 11th. This hardly ever happens in the modern game (Leeds excepted!). There have been few if any occasions for the CL winner not qualifying, and the only known case was the Real Madrid situation in 2000 and the Spanish FA ruled in their favour.

I think that Uefa could move on this decision in Liverpool's *and* Everton's favour, and save the FA some grief. Its an easy decision for them and Liverpool could easily play someone like Lodz or their ilk and just be another team in the draw.

My own personl opinion is that Uefa should allow the loser of the final also to qualify. That would at least be some compensation, should they need it.

Redspider

super_furry

Keano_sli wrote:

Haven't seen any clear picture to show the ball was over the line yet, does anyone have links to a site that might show this?

This www.islandia.is/~nonnihj/mark.jpg looks pretty conclusive to me. Just look where his standing leg is and where the ball is, in relation to his head.

LegacyUser

Have a vote on Liverpool's participation in next League's competition...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=252506&goto=newpost

redspider

super_furry wrote:

This www.islandia.is/~nonnihj/mark.jpg looks pretty conclusive to me. Just look where his standing leg is and where the ball is, in relation to his head.

I dont think you can say its conclusive. The FIFA rule is:

"A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar."

In reality, refs and linesmen give goals when the ball is often not 100% over the goal line however.

The ball is 22.1 cm wide in diameter. The goal line should be no more than 12 cm wide. For a goal to be scored officially, the edge of the ball facing the goal should be about 22 cm past the edge of the goal line. It looks as if this is not the case with this Liverpool goal. However, as stated goals are given all the time, most of the time in fact, when the ball is mainly over the line, ie: 50%. Indeed in many cases, the goal is given when the ball is only partially over the line, ie: 10%. This begs the question, do refs really know the rules properly? I for one will be voting for technology to solve this problem in the future.

I think what can be said conclusively is that some of the ball has indeed crossed the goal line, the edge nearest the back of the net. I think everyone can see that is probable. The question is how much.

My hunch is that it is more than 25% of the ball, but I cant say for certain if it is much more than 50% of the ball. It could be about 75% of the ball, but I dont have clear evidence to prove that. These differences are a matter of inches, in actual fact 1cm can make a difference whether a ball is a goal or not.

You may have seen a programme some time back where the English goal in the 1966 final was analysed by software, etc. They concluded that the ball did not cross the line 100% and hence a goal should not have been given. They did conclude that some of the ball crossed the line. The ref gave it anyway and the rest is history.


As stated earlier, this issue is not so big if the Ref was going to give a penalty anyway. He should have given one if the goal wasnt given, but he didnt. He hasnt commented on that aspect so far, but if he did come out and say that he was going to give a penalty anyway, it wouldnt have mattered.

If anyone gets a good scientific 3D anlysis of whether this was a goal, post the link here.

By the way, there must be better footage than that. Where are all the TV cameras, where are all the journalist photo's etc. I'm sure something will surface in time, but I would be very surprised indeed if it showed that the ball was 100% over the line.

Redspider

LizardKing

attached: some pics I found around the net .. seems very hard to judge ..

LizardKing

and a Gif from the Sun ...

uberwolf

redspider wrote:

By the way, there must be better footage than that. Where are all the TV cameras

UTV coverage made a comment about restrictions on teh number of cameras allowed - with particular reference to not allowing cameras behind the goals

super_furry

Personally I think the referee did Chelsea a favour by allowing the goal - otherwise it was a penalty with Cech being red-carded.

redspider

Yeah, Uefa have banned in-goal cameras. But take a look at the row of journo's in the photo you found above: garciagoalRUK040505_450x360.jpg. Just as in the case of the hand of god goal from Maradona, there must be one photographer that captured the moment, and some camera from other stations. Maybe Uefa requested a ban on such photo's, but if any photo exists, I'm sure it will be published in due course.

My gut feeling is as stated above, the ball partially over the line, maybe more than 50% over the line, but not 100% over the line. Time will tell as this incident will not go away.

Yes, the ref may have given the penalty, but penalties can be missed.

spockety

That goal is actually completely irrelevant. In order to progress to the final, Chelsea needed to score a goal, regardless of Liverpool scoring or not. The fact is, they did not manage to do this last night, or the previous week.

I wouldn't buy either that Liverpool's tactics changed after scoring to such an extent that it meant it was impossible to score against them. Chelsea were fielding a glittering array of talent against Igor Biscan and Djimi Traore. By all rights, they should have bloody hammered them.

uberwolf

redspider wrote:

Yes, the ref may have given the penalty, but penalties can be missed.

humour me whilst I develop this. Yes - missed peno. 0-0. What then?

10 man chelsea. Who would Cudicini have replaced? Tiago? Now consider Chelsea who spent the game failing to get any width on the ball, reduced to 1 shot on target all game, now with only ten men to knock on the door. IMO they'd have lost the game by a much more signifcant margin than they did, with the balance entirely changed.

spockety

Question.. in the event of a keeper getting sent off, and a penalty given, are the team allowed sub a new goalie on before the peno, or do they have to use an outfield player between the sticks until after the penalty is done?

uberwolf

It's always been the keeper coming on when I've seen it happen

fade2black

They can bring one on before the penalty is taken

_blank_

Yep, they are allowed to put on the sub keeper before the penalty kick is taken, but ONLY at penalties is this rule stipulated.

For example, if there is a professional foul by the keeper, outside the box, and he is sent off, the ref doesn't have to let them sub on a keeper before the free kick is taken.

Keano_sli

Thanks for the Pics lads, still couldn't say one way or the other based on that. Not as clear as the one Carroll scooped out against spurs which was a goal but not given.
Still it matters very little after the fact really, its not going to be undone one way or another!

galwaydude

the main thing is that we are in the final in 3 weeks time against PSV or milan. It looks like gerrard wants to stay at liverpool now, making all the right noises.A least we will have alonso back to man the field.
On another note i see that steve finnan wasnt selected on the boards team of the year which is shocking as he has been the best right back over the last 6 months or so.
At least now the future is looking rosy for liverpool regarding player purchases etc over the summer.
Lets beat milan and do what Utd couldnt do lol, only messing Utd fans.

SpAcEd OuT

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Milan will be highly favoured for the final but they are an overated team

yes Milan are highly over rated :rolleyes:

they play one bad game against PSV (which they won 2-0 anyways) and now suddenly there over rated?

Liverpool have done well against 2 european giants (juve and chelsea) but I doubt there style of play will work against Milan who seem to have no weak points.Their goalkeeper Dida is playing brilliant,their defence with Nesta,Maldini,Cafu and Stam seems rock solid,their midfield is brilliant probably the strongest in Europe,Gattuso,Pirlo,Seedorf and Kaka is an awesome combo.....and then theres their strike force.....Crespo and Shevkenko need I say more?

Yes like many many others I have doubted Liverpool all season but I am positive Liverpool wont be able to beat Milan if Milan play like they have been playing all season...Then again Liverpool have been lucky enough to catch Juve and Chelsea off form this season and taken full adventage.

Liverpool will need alot more luck if they want to beat Milan,even if they dont win the CL, Liverpool actually reaching the final this season is a major achievment for Benitez considering the state of the team before he arrived.

TheMonster

Liverpool are a poor mans Milan tactics wise. Milan get a lead and defend it difference being they defend it by keeping the ball and not letting the opposition have it, Liverpool keep giving the ball to the opposition to have another go.

uberwolf

TheMonster wrote:

Milan get a lead and defend it difference being they defend it by keeping the ball and not letting the opposition have it

as demonstrated against PSV, at home, in the second half of the CL semi 1st leg.

Without Alonso in the side they haven't a metronome. But the much vaunted chelsea manged a single shot on target in 186 minutes of play. The final is going to be the first CL game Liverpool will have played all season with their first choice squad available for selection. They may be a little more effective than they've been to date

mike65

By reaching the final Liverpool have made £28 million from CL!

With Alonso back (and back to full fitness) with Cisse also fit and more confident (he bottled the one-on-one last night I think) I see no reason why Liverpool can't win the flipping thing.

Mike.

KdjaCL

If Milan get to the final Pool HAVE to score 1st, or as PSV showed just bloody put it up to them.

They dont like it up em etc:

But only way i can see MIlan beiong beaten is over 90 minutes and forcing them to come out and play ie score 1st.


kdjac

fade2black

Dunno where the hell they got this from:

http://skysports.planetfootball.com/article.asp?id=274317

Shred

fade2black wrote:

Dunno where the hell they got this from:

http://skysports.planetfootball.com/article.asp?id=274317

Saw that on sky earlier and I'm not convinced, it just doesn't look right. Apparently ITV will have conclusive evidence on the news (on now apparently, I don't have it though) that the ball DID cross the line...this one is going to go on and on :rolleyes: Screw it though, it was a red and a penalty if it wasn't a goal and the pool are in the final. End of

eyerer

hmm, its just typical they have to try to bring liverpool down

who was it that said 'liverpool were lucky they played juventus and chelsea when they were off form'....

Drag00n79

I spotted this guy on TV last night in the crowd after Garcia scored. Seemed very downbeat. A Chelsea fan in the wrong end or maybe just extremely shocked? He was like that for the 4-5 seconds of the shot while everyone else was going mental around him.

case n basket

Probably hasn't been a Chelsea fan long enough to get something blue to wear!

zokrez

Grateful to have been there ! :cool:

BaZmO*

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

Liverpool have done well against 2 european giants (juve and chelsea)

Surely you mean "1"?

Can't ever remember Chelsea winning the European Cup or even being in the final for that matter!

B.

redspider

In terms of the goal incident, the Sky picture/"analysis", seemingly pushed by Andy Gray wearing his "anti-Liverpool hat", is more or less useless. This needs to be scientifically worked out, which it can with a good bit of work, using speed of the ball angles, timing and computer number crunching, etc. This will produce a probability of how far the ball crossed the line. It needs high speed camera film for it to be calculated more accurately which ITV have. The normal TV speed at home is 24 frames per second (fps) which doesnt have a sufficiently low granularity. And you cant do accurate analysis of slow mo because the speed is a variable depending on the hand of the VT editor(s) in the studio. The sports science dept in the University of Liverpool may be a place to look into it or those companies that provide football analysis software.

Whether it matters or not is another question. In terms of the game, the decision was made and the football goes on. However, like all controversies, it is always of major interest to know exactly what happened, just like the 1966 goal which is now calculated at not being a goal. I'm sure someone will look into it, the anoraks as it were, although neither Chelsea or Liverpool will be.

In terms of what would have happened if that goal wasnt given, we will never know. The penalty may or may not have been given. (I have heard no comments from the ref so far). The goalie may or may not have been sent off. Even if he was sent off, the penalty may or may not have been saved. Even if it was missed, and even with Chelsea down to 10 men, there is no way of telling the result of the match. It could have been a win for Liverpool, a 0-0 draw and penalties, a score-draw and Chelsea going through, or a win for Chelsea. There is no way of knowing. On evidence it would indicate that it would have been close, no matter what.


As for AC Milan and Liverpool's chances, of course Liverpool have a great chance in the final. PSV showed last night and indeed in the 1st leg that AC Milan are beatable. Indeed, AC Milan lost 3-1 last night! And, anything can happen in a final. Teams that have less capability can lose finals. Teams that can dominate a match can lose finals. Thats just the nature of football. So Liverpool have a great great chance. In a way, I think AC Milan are a better team to play against than PSV. PSV would have had much more of a fight, probably. Liverpool may have even been favourites, a difficult tag to bear for some of the players. The mind and approach will play a big factor and being underdogs suits Liverpool and indeed most players.

There should be a nice build-up to this final in 3 weeks. The Italian media will no doubt go crazy over Milan and make them out to be world beaters. Most of the so-called experts will be highlighting the class of Shevcenko, Crespo, the Milan back-4, etc. That will suit Liverpool. Dunphy had hinted after Liverpool's win over Chelsea that he would get out of the forecasting business, but he has already slipped back into his old ways and is plumping for Milan.

Liverpool can do it. One major collective effort and they can beat Milan.

Redspider

PHB

To be honest, I think its great when a team blames something for their loss.
Look at ARsenal, when they blamed Rooney for his 'dive', they felt cheated and demoralised, and thus played ****e for the next couple of games.
The same thing could happen to chelsea, but tbh I think deep down they all know it was a red card and a peno anyway so I can't imagine that too much
Thats why people like Benetiz imo, because if his team losses its because they deserved to lose, and if they win, they deserve to win.

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

In terms of the goal incident, the Sky picture/"analysis", seemingly pushed by Andy Gray wearing his "anti-Liverpool hat", is more or less useless. This needs to be scientifically worked out, which it can with a good bit of work, using speed of the ball angles, timing and computer number crunching, etc. This will produce a probability of how far the ball crossed the line. It needs high speed camera film for it to be calculated more accurately which ITV have. The normal TV speed at home is 24 frames per second (fps) which doesnt have a sufficiently low granularity. And you cant do accurate analysis of slow mo because the speed is a variable depending on the hand of the VT editor(s) in the studio. The sports science dept in the University of Liverpool may be a place to look into it or those companies that provide football analysis software.

But in all fairness that's all irrelevant. It won't make a blind bit of difference if it was a goal or not. It was given as a goal and that's all that matters.

B.

galwaydude

its done and dusted , we are in the final in 3 weeks and what a match it will be for liverpool fans all over the world.
Come on the pool!!!!

redspider

In terms of the goal analysis, you can use frame counting. This is taken from normal TV footage so wont be accurate, but it gives you an idea of how it can be done.

Garcia shoots, the ball deflects off Terry. Use that contact as the starting point. It takes 21 frames (at a rate of 24 fps) from the deflection contact for the ball to travel about 3 yards where it makes contact with the ground for a bounce. It travels this distance in 0.8 of a sec (= 21 frames). The ball at that bounce contact slows down as energy is absorbed, but due to the spin that was on it, it also picks up some traversal speed. The centre of the ball bounces approx. 36 cm from the line, so the ball is at that point approx. 59 cm from being 100% over the goal line and an undisputed goal (ie: 11cm radius + 36cm + 12cm line width).

From that contact point, its another 9 frames before Gallas makes contact. 9 frames is 0.375 of a second so is it likely that the ball travelled approx. 59 cm in that 9 frames?

Well, the speed before the bounce was approx. 274 cm (towards goal) in 21 frames, or 13 cm per frame. Lets assume for a moment that the speed thereafter is halved to 6 cm a frame. In 9 frames it would have travelled 54 cm, which is not quite past the 59 cm. It probably slowed down quite a bit, even if the spin did accelerate it laterally. Hence a reasonable assumption is a speed of 6 cm per frame at the minimum. This would mean that the ball was at that point 5 cm short of being 100% over the line, but it was 77% over the line. Perhaps officially not a 100% goal, but also perhaps more of a goal than many others that have been given over the years and in modern times.

More accurate analysis may show something different, perhaps 100% over the line. If anybody hears of anything don’t forget to post it.

Redspider

redspider

redspider wrote:

This needs to be scientifically worked out ...

Whether it matters or not is another question. In terms of the game, the decision was made and the football goes on.

BaZmO* wrote:

But in all fairness that's all irrelevant. It won't make a blind bit of difference if it was a goal or not. It was given as a goal and that's all that matters.

I agree that in football terms, play goes on and thats what I said.

But in terms of interest, it is of interest. Media quotes say "Liverpool go through on a dubious goal". You meet a guy in a pub that you know, he says Liverpool's goal wasnt a goal, etc. Knowing exactly where the ball was at the point of contact is useful information for all.

Redspider

BaZmO*

redspider wrote:

I agree that in football terms, play goes on and thats what I said.

But in terms of interest, it is of interest. Media quotes say "Liverpool go through on a dubious goal". You meet a guy in a pub that you know, he says Liverpool's goal wasnt a goal, etc. Knowing exactly where the ball was at the point of contact is useful information for all.

Redspider

I tell you what, you reel off that scientific waffle that you've posted above to "the guy in the pub" and see where it gets you!

Let it go, it doesn't matter, Liverpool are in the final and Chelsea are not.

B.