PDA

View Full Version : FC Chelsea vs. FC Barcelona!


Jashar
05-06-2009, 06:53 PM
Maaaaaan what a game! What an aweful refree! I can fully understand the chelsea players frustration! But still I'm so happy that Barca made it!!!

VISCA BARCA

highflyerreborn
05-06-2009, 08:09 PM
Chalsea deserved to win great manly performance


Horrible referee ... robbed them of final spot ... clear hand ball not called


:down:

While I must say Barcelona was superior in old games but Chealsea played to win and they were better team ROBBED

footballdxb
05-07-2009, 12:14 AM
I do not get it why FIFA does not allow video assistance to refs in such important matches. Abidal's sent off was so ridiculous... the match could have simply sinked in favor of Chelsea unfairly. Then there was that obvious hand ball...

It is a shame Chelsea did not advance... they were the better and more dangerous side. Messi and Eto'o were inexistent.

On the other hand, I hate players like Drogba or Ballack who regularly miss goal opportunities and are unhappy with whatsoever decision going against them (even when they get subbed out!!!). Regardless the unfairness of the refereeing, I am not cool with that!

Essien and Iniesta's goals were top goals!

I really hope Barca will play its real game in the Final at Roma.

sepehr
05-07-2009, 02:07 AM
Horrible refereeing:
- handball not called on pique, although the ref had no angle on it.
- the red card on abidal was a clear dive on anelka

Overall this was a poorly refereed series, as chelsea got away with many things in the first game and Barca got some fortunate calls in the return game.

However I feel that Barca deserved to go through since they played 180 minutes of real football, and how it should be played. Chelsea tried to kill the game after scoring an unreal goal, and they paid the price.

It would be sad to see a team like Chelsea make it to the final based on how they played anti-football. The only people who would be happy would be Chelsea fans, the neutral fans always want to see beautiful football and Barca was the only team displaying it.

If teams like Chelsea and Greece in Euro 2004 are successful it would greatly damage the game of football in the long run. I was so disgusted by Chelsea tactics, I can understand if you defend to finish the game out, but to fully defend with 10 players for 170 of the 180 minutes of the game is ridiculous. It takes the enjoyment of watching football out. That's also another reason why I was happy to not see Chelsea and ManU in the finals as English teams tend to play counterattacking football.

Keano
05-07-2009, 03:17 AM
I agree with FDXB on the video replays at such controversial scenes. As much as I love Barca I gotta be honest, Barca was purely lucky! Chelsea was the much better side and they did get robbed by the sloppy referee!

IPL Coaches kami class and integrity yaad begiran, imagine if QN, Khodadad, Karimi, Mayeli Kohan, Misaghian were in Guss Hiddink's shoes!

footballdxb
05-07-2009, 11:02 AM
Horrible refereeing:
- handball not called on pique, although the ref had no angle on it.
- the red card on abidal was a clear dive on anelka

Overall this was a poorly refereed series, as chelsea got away with many things in the first game and Barca got some fortunate calls in the return game.

However I feel that Barca deserved to go through since they played 180 minutes of real football, and how it should be played. Chelsea tried to kill the game after scoring an unreal goal, and they paid the price.

It would be sad to see a team like Chelsea make it to the final based on how they played anti-football. The only people who would be happy would be Chelsea fans, the neutral fans always want to see beautiful football and Barca was the only team displaying it.

If teams like Chelsea and Greece in Euro 2004 are successful it would greatly damage the game of football in the long run. I was so disgusted by Chelsea tactics, I can understand if you defend to finish the game out, but to fully defend with 10 players for 170 of the 180 minutes of the game is ridiculous. It takes the enjoyment of watching football out. That's also another reason why I was happy to not see Chelsea and ManU in the finals as English teams tend to play counterattacking football.

sepehr jaan as a football fan I would like to comment as follows:

1) Barcelona is a super team and playing an open game against them is a huge gamble (suicidal)! Look at what happened to Real Madrid in their last El Classico... Chelsea in both matches managed to make Barca's super heroes look ordinary.

2) Considering the result in Barcelona, Chelsea could not afford to conceed a goal at home without winning the match! At the same time, Chelsea after scoring a goal could not afford to opt for the anti-football as Barca, counting some of the most talented players in their ranks, could score at any moment and change the whole course of the match. Barca's goal came at the perfect time of the match, leaving Chelsea with no time to recover and regrets for their missed goal chances.

3) Considering the point 2, I think Chelsea played very well for most of the game by closing their defense strictly and organising well their counter attacks. Lets be fair, in last night's match, they were the side which created more goal opportunities. Barcelona circulated very well the ball (God I wish I could stop/control the ball the way they do...) but their passing game mostly ended up with no danger.

I really hope Barca display a fantastic game in the final. That is all I hope as I really like the way they play in La Liga.

sepehr
05-08-2009, 04:27 PM
sepehr jaan as a football fan I would like to comment as follows:

1) Barcelona is a super team and playing an open game against them is a huge gamble (suicidal)! Look at what happened to Real Madrid in their last El Classico... Chelsea in both matches managed to make Barca's super heroes look ordinary.

2) Considering the result in Barcelona, Chelsea could not afford to conceed a goal at home without winning the match! At the same time, Chelsea after scoring a goal could not afford to opt for the anti-football as Barca, counting some of the most talented players in their ranks, could score at any moment and change the whole course of the match. Barca's goal came at the perfect time of the match, leaving Chelsea with no time to recover and regrets for their missed goal chances.

3) Considering the point 2, I think Chelsea played very well for most of the game by closing their defense strictly and organising well their counter attacks. Lets be fair, in last night's match, they were the side which created more goal opportunities. Barcelona circulated very well the ball (God I wish I could stop/control the ball the way they do...) but their passing game mostly ended up with no danger.

I really hope Barca display a fantastic game in the final. That is all I hope as I really like the way they play in La Liga.


Very nice response footballdxb, you make some really nice points. Here are my comments :)

1 - Playing an open game against Barca is a very bad decision, but chelsea completely defended, their formation was 9-0-1, and they completely clogged up the middle. As a tactician it makes sense but as a fan of football I believe that will eventually kill the game. Its not wrong to play like that but i believe it goes against the morals of the game.

Barca can be beat, I watched Valenica play them a couple weeks ago and they attacked Barca's relatively weak defense which worked for them and they got points out of it. Fans are paying alot of money to watch soccer, they dont want to see 1 team play football and the other team to just kick the ball upfield and hope they can catch them on an offside trap.

2 - Chelsea could not afford to get scored on, but as we all saw they decided that 1 goal was enough and strictly defended after scoring an amazing goal. Although they had the better opportunities in the game, they were all from counter attacks after Barca had commited men forward. Barca was the more positive team in this game, and it showed in their posession which was almost double that of chelsea's.
As a result of chelsea's tactics they were vulnerable to being knocked out since they defended for most of the game. This tactic works alot of time, but one mistake such as Essien's clearance can cost them the game since they dont have an insurance goal.
This is where I disagree with your analysis "At the same time, Chelsea after scoring a goal could not afford to opt for the anti-football as Barca, counting some of the most talented players in their ranks, could score at any moment and change the whole course of the match"

from my view Chelsea was defending with 10 players and solely relying on high balls sent to Drogba for their attacks, and set pieces.

3 - Taking everything into consideration I still think that Chelsea played really well to stop Barca from attacking their net and it almost paid off for them. Chelsea were playing "not to lose", instead they should have been playing "to win". This is where I think football is going in the wrong direction, and in the long term will destroy football. Barca wasn't able to create anything in the final 3rd of the field since Chelsea had 6-8 players in the box and they closed down all the passing lanes.

Overall I think our disagreement stems from different mentalities in football. I'm all for positive football, when I watch a team like Barca or Arsenal pass the ball around I am amazed by how much the game has advanced and how beautiful it can be to watch the game. I have friends who were not into soccer, but when I showed them some Barca games they loved it due to their attacking style and great teamwork. If Barca for example were playing Persepolis I would understand Persepepolis defending since their team is not capable of playing Barca , however Chelsea is loaded with attacked like Anelka, Drogba, Lampard, Malouda.... and they have the ability to attack and score goals as was demonstrated against Liverpool.

I just hope that in the CL final we don't see a team score very early on then sit back and defend. Hopefully Barca will score first and then the game will really open up. It's a shame that Alves, and Abidal will be missing from this game, I always like to see teams at full strenght for final matches. Good discussion and much respect footballdxb. I'm off to go and play some gol koochick now :)

footballdxb
05-09-2009, 01:30 AM
Very nice response footballdxb, you make some really nice points. Here are my comments :)

1 - Playing an open game against Barca is a very bad decision, but chelsea completely defended, their formation was 9-0-1, and they completely clogged up the middle. As a tactician it makes sense but as a fan of football I believe that will eventually kill the game. Its not wrong to play like that but i believe it goes against the morals of the game.

Barca can be beat, I watched Valenica play them a couple weeks ago and they attacked Barca's relatively weak defense which worked for them and they got points out of it. Fans are paying alot of money to watch soccer, they dont want to see 1 team play football and the other team to just kick the ball upfield and hope they can catch them on an offside trap.

2 - Chelsea could not afford to get scored on, but as we all saw they decided that 1 goal was enough and strictly defended after scoring an amazing goal. Although they had the better opportunities in the game, they were all from counter attacks after Barca had commited men forward. Barca was the more positive team in this game, and it showed in their posession which was almost double that of chelsea's.
As a result of chelsea's tactics they were vulnerable to being knocked out since they defended for most of the game. This tactic works alot of time, but one mistake such as Essien's clearance can cost them the game since they dont have an insurance goal.
This is where I disagree with your analysis "At the same time, Chelsea after scoring a goal could not afford to opt for the anti-football as Barca, counting some of the most talented players in their ranks, could score at any moment and change the whole course of the match"

from my view Chelsea was defending with 10 players and solely relying on high balls sent to Drogba for their attacks, and set pieces.

3 - Taking everything into consideration I still think that Chelsea played really well to stop Barca from attacking their net and it almost paid off for them. Chelsea were playing "not to lose", instead they should have been playing "to win". This is where I think football is going in the wrong direction, and in the long term will destroy football. Barca wasn't able to create anything in the final 3rd of the field since Chelsea had 6-8 players in the box and they closed down all the passing lanes.

Overall I think our disagreement stems from different mentalities in football. I'm all for positive football, when I watch a team like Barca or Arsenal pass the ball around I am amazed by how much the game has advanced and how beautiful it can be to watch the game. I have friends who were not into soccer, but when I showed them some Barca games they loved it due to their attacking style and great teamwork. If Barca for example were playing Persepolis I would understand Persepepolis defending since their team is not capable of playing Barca , however Chelsea is loaded with attacked like Anelka, Drogba, Lampard, Malouda.... and they have the ability to attack and score goals as was demonstrated against Liverpool.

I just hope that in the CL final we don't see a team score very early on then sit back and defend. Hopefully Barca will score first and then the game will really open up. It's a shame that Alves, and Abidal will be missing from this game, I always like to see teams at full strenght for final matches. Good discussion and much respect footballdxb. I'm off to go and play some gol koochick now :)

sepehr jaan, you are most welcome. I totally miss gol koochik...

Ghorbaanat,

ftbldxb