Congratulations to Chelsea!

[NickBHAFC18]

We all agree it's nice to see one touch football but there are other equally impressive things. I thought it was good because they neutralised Barcelona in the 2nd half and exposed them as a team with no plan B, and counter-attacked with speed and precision. With 10 men. Playing at the Nou Camp. With no natural centre backs, and a striker acting as a makeshift left back.

It wasn't ugly football, it was incredible.

Spot On.

 

[Mellotron]

We all agree it's nice to see one touch football but there are other equally impressive things. I thought it was good because they neutralised Barcelona in the 2nd half and exposed them as a team with no plan B, and counter-attacked with speed and precision. With 10 men. Playing at the Nou Camp. With no natural centre backs, and a striker acting as a makeshift left back.

It wasn't ugly football, it was incredible.

I agree. I don't actually think it was that ugly to watch at all. Incredibly exciting, in fact, and very, very impressive.

 

[kevo]

Are we all Chelsea fans now? Terrible, plastic money club supported by thugs from the home counties who have no connection with south-west London and captained by a repugnant a***hole. They won because they were lucky and Barcelona, for all their quality, ran out of ideas.

I normally support English sides in Europe. But refuse to support Chelsea. Anyone remember when they smashed up the Goldstone? Absolute animals.

Hope they get battered in the final.

 

[Mellotron]

In both legs, when Chelsea counter attacked, they did it with plenty of skill, guile, and technical ability more than matching anything Barca did in the 2 legs.

Lampard's outside of the boot ball out to Ramires on the wing in the first leg was absolutely SUBLIME, if Xavi or Iniesta had done it we'd still all be creaming ourselves over it now.

And Ramires' chip, under THAT much pressure, was absolutely glorious.

Across the two legs, the 2 bits of TRULY world class football were played by Chelsea.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I think it's to Barca's credit that they managed to create 4 or 5 clear cut chances in the first leg, and scored two and had a penalty last night whilst playing against a team with 11 men in their own box. If a team sets itself up that negatively it's going to be a struggle for any team to score lots, but had Barca had their shooting boots on, and Messi was on form and not ill, Chelsea would have conceded about 8 over the two legs and would have been hailed an embarrassment by the media.

Barca lost the tie, Chelsea didn't win it

I think you'll find there main problem and why Barcelona lost was playing with 3 defenders and 7 midfielders, it's all good passing it around side to side in midfield and outside the 6 yard box but it doesn't help you break down a defensively set up team. They needed to stretch Chelsea and all they did was get in situations were Chelsea could just backs to the wall defend. Guardiola was tactically naive with no plan B and the 'celona just weren't good enough.

Chelsea did win you see that's why they are in the final and Barcelona are not you see. That's how it works.


Gosh you are terrible. Chealsea didn't win eh? You better get on the phone to FIFA.

 

[leigull]

I think you'll find there main problem and why Barcelona lost was playing with 3 defenders and 7 midfielders, it's all good passing it around side to side in midfield and outside the 6 yard box but it doesn't help you break down a defensively set up team. They needed to stretch Chelsea and all they did was get in situations were Chelsea could just backs to the wall defend. Guardiola was tactically naive with no plan B and the 'celona just weren't good enough.

Chelsea did win you see that's why they are in the final and Barcelona are not you see. That's how it works.


Gosh you are terrible. Chealsea didn't win eh? You better get on the phone to FIFA.

Way to miss the point completely.

Barca carved Chelsea open on numerous occasions at Stamford Bridge and SHOULD have scored 4 or 5. They didn't, but that wasn't down to Chelsea's brilliance or Barca's poor tactics, it was down to poor/unlucky finishing - end of. Barca's tactics were spot on.

Barca scored twice last night, hit the post, missed a penalty and one or two other glorious chances. Again, Barca's "poor tactics" and Chelsea's supposedly brilliance, let Barca have the chances to score 3 or more. But down to poor finishing they only got 2 which obviously wasn't enough.

Had Barca had Villa available, or Messi been on form, they would have scored a few more of those missed chances and progressed comfortably. So again, Barca lost the tie because of their finishing not because of tactics or Chelsea's defending.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Way to miss the point completely.

Barca carved Chelsea open on numerous occasions at Stamford Bridge and SHOULD have scored 4 or 5. They didn't, but that wasn't down to Chelsea's brilliance or Barca's poor tactics, it was down to poor/unlucky finishing - end of. Barca's tactics were spot on.

Barca scored twice last night, hit the post, missed a penalty and one or two other glorious chances. Again, Barca's "poor tactics" and Chelsea's supposedly brilliance, let Barca have the chances to score 3 or more. But down to poor finishing they only got 2 which obviously wasn't enough.

Had Barca had Villa available, or Messi been on form, they would have scored a few more of those missed chances and progressed comfortably. So again, Barca lost the tie because of their finishing not because of tactics or Chelsea's defending.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. That's Barcelona's fault for not having a striker.

And you cannot deny Barcelona continually over elborate their play, allowing Chelsea to get back and defend, it WAS tactically inept of them not to try and make space by using any sort of pace and urgency. Even guardiola mentioned he should have made some tactical changes.

They failed to beat a team with 10 men and no recognised centre backs on the field, whatever way you want to paint it, that's awful.

And Chelsea did win though, didn't they?

 

[leigull]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. That's Barcelona's fault for not having a striker.

That's exactly my point, it was Barca's fault for not having another striker in the squad, and because of the number of players missing great chances. Not Chelsea's brilliance.

And you cannot deny Barcelona continually over elborate their play, allowing Chelsea to get back and defend, it WAS tactically inept of them not to try and make space by using any sort of pace and urgency. Even guardiola mentioned he should have made some tactical changes.

They could have changed tactics and perhaps created a few more chances, but they had enough to win the game without it, and the way the finishing was going, they probably wouldn't have scored again had the 2nd half lasted another hour.

They failed to beat a team with 10 men and no recognised centre backs on the field, whatever way you want to paint it, that's awful..

And Chelsea did win though, didn't they?

Just rehashing old points now, they went out because of bad finishing and missing a penalty.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I just can't take much pleasure from seeing a team clinging on for dear life for 180 minutes and scraping through due to opposition missing a lot of clear cut chances (mainly at Stamford Bridge) and a penalty. Of course Chelsea fans should be over the moon, but for neutrals, the better team won't be taking part in the final unfortunately.

It's not much fun watching a team play with 9,10 or 11 men behind the ball for two matches

So you don't go much for differing tactics then I take it? I found it fascinating to watch attack v defence and how the Chelsea ethic won the tie. What I also found interesting was that Chelsea actually had a plan b and c, where as Barcelona only had a plan a. Usually very effective but they were playing an intelligent experienced line up that never took their eye off the game plan. Chelsea can play a passing game, a long ball game and a defensive game and I am well pleased to see that Barcelona can be picked off. Oh and don't blame Chelsea for Barcelona's inept performance in front of goal, they are hardly at fault for that.

Edit: I didn't read any posts after this in case I am accused of 'rehashing'.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

That's exactly my point, it was Barca's fault for the lack of a striker and the players missing great chances.



They could have changed tactics and perhaps created a few more chances, but they had enough to win the game without it, and the way the finishing was going, they probably wouldn't have scored again had the 2nd half lasted another hour.



Just rehashing old points now, they went out because of bad finishing and missing a penalty.

And Chelsea won the game by staunch defending and some brilliant pieces of skill (Lampard particularly)

If that match was replayed again Chelsea would have still won, maybe not the first leg but definitely the second.

 

[leigull]

Oh and don't blame Chelsea for Barcelona's inept performance in front of goal, they are hardly at fault for that.

I'm not blaming Chelsea for the inept performance in front of goal. I'm saying Barca's tactics were good enough to create enough chances to win each match, and that it was only through their bad finishing that they didn't get through. Barca's fault, Chelsea profitted.

Not denying Chelsea worked hard, but still Barca should have gone through on the balance of the chances created that they normally put away comfortably. They didn't though and that's what lost them the tie

 

[Northstandite]

I think it's to Barca's credit that they managed to create 4 or 5 clear cut chances in the first leg, and scored two and had a penalty last night whilst playing against a team with 11 men in their own box. If a team sets itself up that negatively it's going to be a struggle for any team to score lots, but had Barca had their shooting boots on, and Messi was on form and not ill, Chelsea would have conceded about 8 over the two legs and would have been hailed an embarrassment by the media.

Barca lost the tie, Chelsea didn't win it

Both legs were freaks. Lady luck played massive part.

In the first leg second half, Chelski had zero attempts on goal, despite being at home & their squad costing many £100m's.
That has to be a first in the CL, for a home team of a 'major European power'.
And Barca hit the woodwork several times home and away.


Long before last night, Barca have not been the same this season.
Watching plenty of Spanish football, defensively they have been torn apart often this term.
Teams are now playing the Inter-Mourinho-Chelski method of a deep 9 man defence of tall players, and trying to hit Barca on the counter. Add a little bit of rough house, and mega running down of the clock, you have the formula.

Without ill leftback Abidal, and with Puyol and Piquet having long and frequent injuries, their defence has been awful.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Barca should have gone through on the balance of the chances created that they normally put away comfortably. They didn't though and that's what lost them the tie

Why? Is it their God given right? Personally I find this karma for the 2009 semi at the Bridge. One Chelsea should have won on chances created and four fair shouts for pens turned down and a late (93rd minute) goal from Barcelona that saw them progress. What goes round comes round, and all that.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I have said before I don't enjoy Barcelona football, it's too elaborate and ponderous for me. I prefer good old counter attacking football.

Also re. the penalty, blatent dive from Fabregas and justice was done.

 

[Simon Morgan]

I'm no fan of Chelsea, but I thought it was a magnificent effort last night and I was pulling for them all the way. It was one of the most enthralling European games I have ever seen, I think I can honestly say I've never seen a match quite like it. One team down to 10, camped doggedly in their own penalty area while the other swarmed all over them trying to find a way through. At half time I genuinely thought it was an impossible task, and that it wasn't a case of if Barca scored, but how many. Chelsea will never enjoy as much luck again as they did over the course of those two ties. For sheer drama and entertainment value, I don't think you can top last night.

Just an incredible game.

Has Richard Keys hacked your account?

 

[Northstandite]

I have said before I don't enjoy Barcelona football, it's too elaborate and ponderous for me. I prefer good old counter attacking football.

Also re. the penalty, blatent dive from Fabregas and justice was done.

But ridiculous challenge by the Chelsea defender, sticking the leg out. Far more a foul, than the soft pens given to ManU this year.


Counter attacking. Just out of interest, it would be funny if a team of counter attackers (of similar ability) met another.
Would a Chelsea vs Inter/Real game lead to boths team being encamped at their own ends, with a no-mans-land in between?

 

[leigull]

Both legs were freaks. Lady luck played massive part.

In the first leg second half, Chelski had zero attempts on goal, despite being at home & their squad costing many £100m's.
That has to be a first in the CL, for a home team of a 'major European power'.
And Barca hit the woodwork several times home and away.


Long before last night, Barca have not been the same this season.
Watching plenty of Spanish football, defensively they have been torn apart often this term.
Teams are now playing the Inter-Mourinho-Chelski method of a deep 9 man defence of tall players, and trying to hit Barca on the counter. Add a little bit of rough house, and mega running down of the clock, you have the formula.

Without ill leftback Abidal, and with Puyol and Piquet having long and frequent injuries, their defence has been awful.

And they've been far too reliant on Messi to get the goals. Villa's injury hasn't helped but he was on subs bench more often than not before he broke his leg. But they need to have an option when the rare occasion comes up that Messi isn't on form.

Will be interesting to see the signings they make over the summer. A Centre back is an absolute must!

 

[Northstandite]

And they've been far too reliant on Messi to get the goals. Villa's injury hasn't helped but he was on subs bench more often than not before he broke his leg. But they need to have an option when the rare occasion comes up that Messi isn't on form.

Will be interesting to see the signings they make over the summer. A Centre back is an absolute must!

They need a true left back and another classy central defender. Puyol getting old now, and poor Abidal has serious (far more important than football) health problems.

 

[leigull]

Why? Is it their God given right? Personally I find this karma for the 2009 semi at the Bridge. One Chelsea should have won on chances created and four fair shouts for pens turned down and a late (93rd minute) goal from Barcelona that saw them progress. What goes round comes round, and all that.

Not a God given right at all. Just they created enough clear chances that normally they would stick away with aplomb.

Indeed, the 4 penalty shouts back in 2009 were horrendous decisions so agree, this may well have been karma biting back

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I have said before I don't enjoy Barcelona football, it's too elaborate and ponderous for me. I prefer good old counter attacking football.

Also re. the penalty, blatent dive from Fabregas and justice was done.

If anyone can be accused of one dimensional football it is more so the case that Barcelona are just that. As I said before they don't have a plan b. It may be pretty to watch for many but I think most people that like to watch tactical football would soon be screaming at them to sometimes change the way they play, mix it up a bit? Surprise the opposition, they don't seem to be able to do that. Makes a defensive plan that much easier to cope with them.