Football Season 2011/2012

[Retro_Link]

What was it they were saying about the Barca home pitch being a bit wider, which makes playing there difficult?

 

I assumed by the time you got to the top flight teams, they must all be playing on the same maxed out size pitch?

[Fierce_LiNk]

What was it they were saying about the Barca home pitch being a bit wider, which makes playing there difficult?

 

I assumed by the time you got to the top flight teams, they must all be playing on the same maxed out size pitch?

 

Pretty sure the pitch at Stamford Bridge is a lot narrower. Barca will have an advantage because of their crowd and being used to the pitch and conditions. They'll have much more space to move around.

 

Barca did look like they struggled slightly due to the pitch size, imo. They couldn't drift players out wide and get behind Chelsea, which worked to their advantage. It meant they could defend narrowly and force Barca through the middle, which the likes of Mikel, Terry and Cahill defended really well.

[Ramar]

What was it they were saying about the Barca home pitch being a bit wider, which makes playing there difficult?

 

I assumed by the time you got to the top flight teams, they must all be playing on the same maxed out size pitch?

 

If I'm not mistaken Fifa state a pitch must be between v-x wide and y-z long, it's the club's prerogative on how big they then make it.

 

Here's an incredibly old link.

[Ellmeister]

Still yet to learn of the team @Wii supports so I can ridicule the fact his team is not in the Champs league still like Chelski!

 

Still yet to learn of the team @Wii supports so I can ridicule the fact his team is not in the Champs league still like Chelski!

[Wii]

Pretty sure the pitch at Stamford Bridge is a lot narrower. Barca will have an advantage because of their crowd and being used to the pitch and conditions. They'll have much more space to move around.

 

Barca did look like they struggled slightly due to the pitch size, imo. They couldn't drift players out wide and get behind Chelsea, which worked to their advantage. It meant they could defend narrowly and force Barca through the middle, which the likes of Mikel, Terry and Cahill defended really well.

 

You might as well say Torres played well last night while you're at it then. Chelsea didn't defend well. Just because Barca missed all them great chances doesn't mean Chelsea defended well. Only Cech and Drogba played well for Chelsea.

[Fierce_LiNk]

You might as well say Torres played well last night while you're at it then. Chelsea didn't defend well. Just because Barca missed all them great chances doesn't mean Chelsea defended well. Only Cech and Drogba played well for Chelsea.

 

Seriously, you don't think Chelsea defended well? The only time they left their guard down resulted in the shot which hit the bar in the first half. Everything after that was handled pretty well. Bar the opportunity at the end which hit the post, Chelsea probably defended as well as was possible against such a strong attacking team.

 

What would you have done in their position, out of curiosity? Which team do you support?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Fierce_LiNk
Automerged Doublepost

[Wii]

@Fierce_LiNk

 

What about Alexis missing an open goal or Fabregas miss and I'm not talking about the shot Ashley Cole cleared off the line? That's another one, way too casual. Still, they'll put it right next Tuesday.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Wii

[MadDog]

I agree with Wii.

 

Ofcourse you can outplay the other team, have more chances and loose. Just because you lost doesn't automatically mean you deserved it. Barca were better than Chelsea in every single category last night, apart from finishing. You'll all say that's the only thing that matters etc. but it isn't really. Barca created alot of chances, and still you'd say Chelsea were at their absolute best defensively.

 

Barca deserved to win last night, they bossed Chelsea for the whole game, and controlled it for 90 minutes. 9 out of 10 times, they'd of pissed that game 3 or more nil, easy.

[Fierce_LiNk]

@Fierce_LiNk

 

What about Alexis missing an open goal or Fabregas miss and I'm not talking about the shot Ashley Cole cleared off the line? That's another one, way too casual. Still, they'll put it right next Tuesday.

 

What about them? We know Barca create chances. Every team will create chances, it happens in football. The important fact is that Chelsea defended well for the majority of the game and that even when Barca had "open goals", they fucked up due to the Chelsea box being overloaded and players putting them off. They had to rush their shots due to the little time they had.

 

I agree with Wii.

 

Ofcourse you can outplay the other team, have more chances and loose. Just because you lost doesn't automatically mean you deserved it. Barca were better than Chelsea in every single category last night, apart from finishing. You'll all say that's the only thing that matters etc. but it isn't really. Barca created alot of chances, and still you'd say Chelsea were at their absolute best defensively.

 

Barca deserved to win last night, they bossed Chelsea for the whole game, and controlled it for 90 minutes. 9 out of 10 times, they'd of pissed that game 3 or more nil, easy.

 

Barca play like that the whole time. They will boss games, so on that basis they deserve to win every single game that they play in right? No. Teams know that the only way to win is to soak up the pressure, frustrate Barca and then hit them on the counter. Inter beat Barca over two legs, particularly doing well with this tactic in the second leg. The stats will say that Barca have had loads of possession and shots, etc, but you'd expect that.

 

The fact is that, in these types of games, Barca will always end up on top of the possession stats. No team will go and attack them or try to outplay them. It would be like trying to attack a missile with a frying pan. If Chelsea had done that, they would have been humiliated last night and would be out of the tie. Instead, they now go into the second leg with a 1-0 lead and Barca have no away goal. Maybe it's anti-football, but there's very little else they could've done.

 

Anyway, it is funny that Wii has dodged Ell's question about who he supports, and I wouldn't expect a Liverpool fan to agree with the points of a Chelsea supporter.

[Wii]

I'd be embarrassed as a Chelsea supporter. They were the home team, played like cowards and had 1 shot on target in the whole game that was a sucker punch right on the stroke of half-time. Do you understand why they have home and away legs? It's completely anti-football.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Yes, it is highly embarrassing to take a 1-0 lead to the Nou Camp.

 

Chelsea should have played an all out offensive game. Getting hammered 5-0 would have been less embarrassing for the fans.

 

Wake up.

[Wii]

I mean it was embarrassing how they played.

[Retro_Link]

[Fierce_LiNk]

How is it embarrassing? They got very tight to Barcelona, stopped Messi, Xavi and Iniesta from having a bigger impact on the game (this seems to have by-passed most people) and managed to get a goal in the process.

 

Look at the bigger picture. This is a team who have struggled in England. They have sacked their manager and have a temporary one in place. They are nowhere near challenging for the title this season and it is a distinct possibility that they won't be playing Champions League Football next season. Or, they might not even get into Europe at all.

 

Their squad has faced criticism for having too many over the hill players. For this team, given how they have performed this year in the domestic league and the troubles that they have had, getting a 1-0 against Barcelona at home is a massive, massive result.

 

This is one of those situations where the end justifies the means. If they had given Barcelona more space and tried to out-play them, I can assure you that the score-line would have been completely different. Also, attacking and defending Barcelona for 90 minutes is not easy. Players become very tired and will lose concentration. They are the best attacking team in the world.

 

I don't really see what they did wrong. They had a method to neutralise the midfield of Barcelona, which worked for the majority of the game. This is why Fabregas was at the end of some of those chances and not Iniesta or even Messi. They were marked out of the game. Something that has been grossly overlooked by people. Yes, they only had the one shot, but they chose the right time to attack and it paid off. It was far, far clearer than anything of Barcelona's chances on the night.

 

This is getting pretty boring now and I feel dirty for defending Chelsea.

[Wii]

The scoreline would have been different if Barca had taken half the chances. Tight? You mean hacking down Messi every time he ran at the goals? Alexis miss from 5 yards out was a better chance than Drogbas.

 

Now onto the wankers that are the Chelsea players. They don't deserve to be in the final or the Champions League next year. They didn't try at all for AVB and were very petulant resenting playing for a manager so young. Did Matteo, you really think he has a clue what he's doing? It's the madmen running the asylum in that dressing room. If they had tried all season instead of waiting to get the sacking they wanted, they wouldn't be struggling to qualify for next years Champions League.

[Retro_Link]

Who do you support?

[Ramar]

Who do you support?

 

Isn't it obvious? Clearly some Barcelona bandwagoner.

[MadDog]

What about them? We know Barca create chances. Every team will create chances, it happens in football. The important fact is that Chelsea defended well for the majority of the game and that even when Barca had "open goals", they fucked up due to the Chelsea box being overloaded and players putting them off. They had to rush their shots due to the little time they had.

 

 

 

Barca play like that the whole time. They will boss games, so on that basis they deserve to win every single game that they play in right? No. Teams know that the only way to win is to soak up the pressure, frustrate Barca and then hit them on the counter. Inter beat Barca over two legs, particularly doing well with this tactic in the second leg. The stats will say that Barca have had loads of possession and shots, etc, but you'd expect that.

 

The fact is that, in these types of games, Barca will always end up on top of the possession stats. No team will go and attack them or try to outplay them. It would be like trying to attack a missile with a frying pan. If Chelsea had done that, they would have been humiliated last night and would be out of the tie. Instead, they now go into the second leg with a 1-0 lead and Barca have no away goal. Maybe it's anti-football, but there's very little else they could've done.

 

Anyway, it is funny that Wii has dodged Ell's question about who he supports, and I wouldn't expect a Liverpool fan to agree with the points of a Chelsea supporter.

 

I never said they deserved to win based on possession alone. I'm saying they dominated Chelsea the whole game. They had 100% control of the game. They created chances, kept the ball for massive amounts of time. Are you really saying Chelsea deserved to win?

 

And @Wii, who do you support!? :p

[Jon]

Barcelona are the best offensive team in football but they can't defend for shit. Their Goalkeeper is a frustrated outfield player and the fact that they stick that ex Liverpool midget in defence when he's a midfielder says it all. Football is as much as keeping the ball out of your own net than scoring 'beautiful' goals. Barcelona will always retain more of the ball because Xavi and Iniesta like to spend half of the game playing one-two in the centre circle.

 

You deserve to win if you put the ball in the net. It doesn't matter how many shots you have, Chelsea had one shot and scored, that's clinical. Barcelona had plenty and failed every time. People need to get this stupid notion out of their head that because you don't beat Barcelona by playing their style that it somehow devalues the victory. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Happenstance]

 

:p

[Fierce_LiNk]

The scoreline would have been different if Barca had taken half the chances. Tight? You mean hacking down Messi every time he ran at the goals? Alexis miss from 5 yards out was a better chance than Drogbas.

 

 

But they didn't take their chances. If this, if that. The fact is that Chelsea won the game and their tactics worked. The players got close to Messi and every now and again it will result in a foul. What are they supposed to do? Let him run through on goal?

 

I never said they deserved to win based on possession alone. I'm saying they dominated Chelsea the whole game. They had 100% control of the game. They created chances, kept the ball for massive amounts of time. Are you really saying Chelsea deserved to win?

 

And @Wii, who do you support!? :p

 

Well, why didn't Chelsea deserve to win? They had one chance, scored it, and defended well for the rest of the game. Would you rather create 10 chances and not score, or create one and bury it? Barca's defending for the goal was disgraceful considering how good the entire team is. They over-committed going forward, lost the ball cheaply, let the ball roll into the box, left Drogba virtually unmarked...It's terrible whichever way you look at it.

 

In other news, very happy that Fergie has come out and said that he has spoken to Ashley Young about recent events.

[Charlie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/sheffield-united/9216963/Sheffield-United-and-Wales-striker-Ched-Evans-jailed-for-five-years-for-raping-a-teenager-too-drunk-to-consent.html

 

Ched Evans found guilty of rape and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

[Fierce_LiNk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/sheffield-united/9216963/Sheffield-United-and-Wales-striker-Ched-Evans-jailed-for-five-years-for-raping-a-teenager-too-drunk-to-consent.html

 

Ched Evans found guilty of rape and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

 

Christ, can't believe that. I half expected this to be brushed under the carpet. Why did the other guy get acquitted?

[Charlie]

Christ, can't believe that. I half expected this to be brushed under the carpet. Why did the other guy get acquitted?

 

That's what I'm confused about too. From what it looks like from the brief article, one dude slept with the girl and that was deemed consensual and then Evans went in and also slept with her and that wasn't consensual?

 

I don't know all the facts obviously but the way my mind is working right now (which I suppose could be offensive - don't take it that way as it's not meant to be) is that the girl woke up and then realised what she did the night before...

[Fierce_LiNk]

That's what I'm confused about too. From what it looks like from the brief article, one dude slept with the girl and that was deemed consensual and then Evans went in and also slept with her and that wasn't consensual?

 

I don't know all the facts obviously but the way my mind is working right now (which I suppose could be offensive - don't take it that way as it's not meant to be) is that the girl woke up and then realised what she did the night before...

 

I don't think it's really offensive to think that. I'm having a discussion with Ine about it right now. What exactly counts as consent? "How drunk" was the girl? Were the men drunk, too? There's a lot of questions there.

 

The whole thing is pretty seedy, though. They booked a room with the intention of finding a girl to have sex with and filmed the thing. It's shameful, so I don't really have any sympathy for the men.