B
Blynd1
Guest
Is it just me or.. The CL final kinda lost the.. "magic" ? Meh..
The Champions League Discussion Thread
- Thread starter CJACKO11
- Start date
- Replies 2K
- Views 246K
haha, just because of no el classico final means that it has lost its 'magic'.
Thank God this happened, maybe spanish ball-licking faction in media will finally shut up. Some people have been literally yapping about El Classico final even before the group games started. Messi Messi Messi Ronaldo Ronaldo Messi Messi Ronaldo Ronaldo , what will Mourinho do, what will Pep do, what Iniesta has had for breakfast, galacticos schmalacticos tiki taka kaka, more golden ball contenders then places in the team, two best clubs on the planet playing space football from the future, 5 levels above everyone else, blah blah blah every **** day throughout last year.
I've got nothing against either club but its simply entertaining watching it all go to ****.
I've got nothing against either club but its simply entertaining watching it all go to ****.
Last edited:
Tyton, tell me about it. I hear the same in my media about the English football, as the media has bough the Premier League and the Championship's rights + FA cup and are speaking about it as it is some kind of space football.
A question to those that follow the German football - Muller looked really good last time I saw him playing, but what happend to his performance? He was looking bad for the small amount of time he was in game yesterday.
A question to those that follow the German football - Muller looked really good last time I saw him playing, but what happend to his performance? He was looking bad for the small amount of time he was in game yesterday.
idk but muller usually shine on big stages. I guess that since Ribery started, and kroos/bastian starting, no space is available for muller :[
same thing on the first leg, he barely played. Bayern's tactic works well after half time during the first leg, i guess that's why they used it again for the away leg.
same thing on the first leg, he barely played. Bayern's tactic works well after half time during the first leg, i guess that's why they used it again for the away leg.
Looks like the CL exit is the last straw for Pep. Very strong rumours he's announcing he's standing down in press conference tomorrow. Apparantly wants a sebatical and just wants a break due to being completely burnt out. Looked it tbh
I don't know, Bayern Munich are missing some good players as well. I don't think David Alaba will be missed as much as Luiz Gustavo and Holger Badstuber (they have Daniel Contento and Rafinha as possible replacements), but he is still a good player.
Just wondering how will Chelsea do in the Final now with missing real key players.
It has to be said that Chelsea are missing players who are more key than Bayern Munich, but apparently UEFA could, and I emphasize could, overturn some of the bans for some of these players. I think the Champions League suspension system is not great, personally, and I hope they change it! Players are missing the final, possibly the biggest game of their life, just because they got booked twice in earlier rounds to help their team get through!
However, I loved the game last night (although it was extremely long), and Bayern Munich fully deserve their win! The teams were both evenly matched, apart from the fact that Bayern scored more penalties than Real Madrid did! It was a shame that Sergio Ramos missed, because Iker Casillas made a good save; Manuel Neuer was truly magnificent in the shootout!
- PZW
I wouldnt read too much into who is missing from each team, this long in the season sometimes using fresh players can be a good thing. Mourinho has been raping Ronaldo with 90 minute matches almost every single game entire last year, and with match against Bayern, it showed. Bayern also has to recover from 120 minute marathon which is never easy.
Death Ball
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
That's one of the reasons why I can't like Barcelona, even when I loved their style during Pep's first season in the bench. That is a disgusting constant each time they lose, with the exception of past season initial loss to Hércules. Everytime they lose it's unjust, they're the ones that should have won because they got the possession or because they got the shots (of course, when they are the team with very few shots then that's not something to account about being unjust winners) or did the less fouls or didn't defend (hahahaha, how it is not a defensive play one based upon retaining possession when such retention is based on the principle of "if we have the ball our rival won't score")
Did you read the news when Iniesta say they deserved to win in Stamford Bridge? I was laughing so hard
Just wondering how will Chelsea do in the Final now with missing real key players.
The biggest miss is Ramires, Ivanovic would next be on my list but if fit then Cahill and Luiz can do a brilliant job together so you are only missing JT's experience and leadership skills which can be replaced elsewhere. We can still put out a good side without a doubt. Its a farce in the first place that players miss out on what could be a one of opportunity in their careers, another reason why Uefa are *****.
It should have been 5-1 Barca at Stamford Bridge...
Death Ball
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,334
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Wording is a bit off. The right wording is "It could have been 5-1 Barça at Stamford Bridge", which is absolutely true. But it doesn't matter how many clear cut chances you had or how close you were to score, it's how many times you did score.
Note: The next is not all implying they're relevant to your answer and hence not to be taken as answers to anything I might think you mean. In fact all my reply is the above, what comes next is ellaboration of the matter of "my team should" with a final specifically about what is said and meant by Barcelona players.
The result is a compound of many things that if you get to do right add to lead a play to the goal and with the goals lead the team to victory, tackles hitting the ball, passes reaching their target, crosses not going at the reach of rivals but of teammates, shots that avoid the keeper... and go within the three wooden bars. You got the goal or you didn't. I understand the feeling that a ball that hit the woodwork was so close to being a goal, but that doesn't add to your deserving or justice or anything. And there were two woodwork hits, so the other three I suppose are balls that passed close to the woodwork... where do we put the should? One meter? Two? Three? Should Ramos' penalty have count?. Football is about scoring goals or about the most advanced player touching ball? We need to make bigger goals? For all or just Barça?
If the striker sees a cross pass two inches too far from his foot before an empty goal, would that also count as almost?. If the striker is alone and it's the winger who'd cross who's one inch from reaching the ball is also a should¡ve won?. Should the result at Stamford Bridge be a 0 for Chelsea because Valdés would have stopped it if he had dropped one inch more in that time or one of the defenders was so close to being able to stick the ball and then so close to try a counter that would have finished? Do we start to should have won by the way of goals that were almost prevented or stopped?. Then what's more strong? The ball that almost hit woodwork but went inside should've been not a goal because it was so close to not get into our goal or the ball that went out by an inch a goal because it was so close to go in?.
It's not should have won. And it's definitely not "Chelsea are unjust winners" as Barça players put it, which is akin to "they should give us the pass instead of them because they only defended and we had so many chances". It's not Chelsea's win is worthless and they're undeserving winners we should be considered the victors attitude of Bará players; all it can be and is, is a "daaaamn, we were sooo close, damnit why didn't I hit it a bit weaker/to the left/to the right/lobbed the keeper/went around the goale/whatever instead, we could have been the winners if just so little had changed".
Because if we start with "if it had went in", then we can continue, if this and if that and if the other and if the one... if every of the Barcelona actions had gone perfect it would've been a Chelsea 0 - Barcelona 150, and if Drogba hadn't stayed offside by so little in their first chance it would've been a 2-0 at London. Such laments are, of course, very much understandable and it's fine that they feel that they were so close and could've won with just a little changes of what happened; but it is has no sense at all, no more than illusion. If it had, what? It didn't. But in no way they can pretend that they -should- have been the winners and that Chelsea -shouldn't- be in the final and they are the winners by justice, because that's false. The justice is the scoreline and they didn't win that.
And specially Barça's players can't start saying Chelsea are unjust winners and they would've been the just ones, when three years ago after Stamford Bridge they and the press were saying Chelsea fans were disgusting sore losers and savage like people for not accepting all the Ovebro's mistakes and acknowledged Barcelona as just winners. Referee denied you three clear penalties that allowed me to pass and you have to admit me as just winners, then when I lose to you because I didn't hit the net enough times then I will refuse to admit you as just winners and claim the just winner was me?. There is only one answer to that.
never said Chelsea didn't deserve to win. To beat Barca they had to defend brilliantly and get a lot of luck. They did both and fair play to them. But really Barca should have had the tie sown up after Stamford Bridge. But they didn't and that's why they're not in the final
U've submitted more words there than I have for uni coursework
I'd be lying if I've read any of it