Barcelona vs. Chelsea CL SF discussion thread

Messiah wrote:They were unlucky in this game and should have won.

but it serves then right, even when we were down to 10 men, they still had everyone behind the ball, instead of looking for the 2nd goal to kill off the game.

So they weren't looking for the second goal when they were creating chances and having penalty claims knocked back by a dodgy ref.

Ballack shouldn't have ducked when Iniesta hit the shot. If he'd stayed tall it seems as if it would probably have hit him. Maybe not, but just sort of get impression that ducking wasn't best thing to do.

Could have been a reaction rather than a thought out movement I guess.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/2482725/

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

Well said but the focus after this game should be on how Chelsea were robbed rather then how they played.

The Bulk wrote:Ballack shouldn't have ducked when Iniesta hit the shot. If he'd stayed tall it seems as if it would probably have hit him. Maybe not, but just sort of get impression that ducking wasn't best thing to do.

Could have been a reaction rather than a thought out movement I guess.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/2482725/

Essien panicked with his clearence he did have a little time.

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

When your oppenent has a clear weakness it makes sense to play a certain way to exploit that. When you're still going to create a host of chances then i think it would defy logic to play any other way. There was a cl final at stake. Barca have to learn to break down these teams or teams can play like that all night long.

But aside from that. I was wondering if your view on Messi has changed at all? I thought he could be unplayable but he was easily enough taken out of it by Chelsea and only really dribbled well in areas that were not overly dangerous.

Pretty simple really.

Chelsea just aren't that awesome a team anymore - they've got a nice boost off Guus, but overall, it's a squad that's trending down.

Any side that tries to go toe-to-toe with Barca will get annihilated (see Madrid), so this is no great shock.

It's like asking a skilful boxer to stand in the middle of the ring and slug it out with a knockout specialist puncher - why would he when he can win the fight by other means?

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

Chelsea at this time are not set up to play any other way and win trophies, They have no top attacking players other than Drogba

The Bulk wrote:Ballack shouldn't have ducked when Iniesta hit the shot. If he'd stayed tall it seems as if it would probably have hit him. Maybe not, but just sort of get impression that ducking wasn't best thing to do.

Could have been a reaction rather than a thought out movement I guess.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/2482725/

born to finish 2nd best

Brian2468 wrote:

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

Chelsea at this time are not set up to play any other way and win trophies, They have no top attacking players other than Drogba

Exactly

Anelka's too inconsistent, Lampard's become convinced that he's the next coming of Juan Roman Riquelme and as for Kalou & Malouda, they're in Babel territory.

L-r d wrote:

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

When your oppenent has a clear weakness it makes sense to play a certain way to exploit that. When you're still going to create a host of chances then i think it would defy logic to play any other way. There was a cl final at stake. Barca have to learn to break down these teams or teams can play like that all night long.

But aside from that. I was wondering if your view on Messi has changed at all? I thought he could be unplayable but he was easily enough taken out of it by Chelsea and only really dribbled well in areas that were not overly dangerous.

One of Barca's major weakness is defending set pieces - attack them and try to win a lot of corners and free kicks around their box. Chelsea didn't do this, they sat back hoping to capitalise on a cock up from one of Barca's defenders. Pure cowardice.

Alves is known to be a very adventurous defender and is a major contributor to Barca's attacks(as poor as he was he provided the cross that eventually led to the goal) - get a winger that could go at him, force him to sit and u neutralise half of Braca's most dangerous and productive flank. But instead we got Malouda playing at LB, giving Alves all the room to attack and they eventually paid for it when he put in the cross that led to the goal.

Thing is, there were a lot of positive ways to exploit the weakness of this Barca side, but Hiddink chose for the most negative approach(ie the easiest and safest option). And he paid the price in the end.

My opinion on Messi is still the same - the best player in the world. Your boy Ronaldo would have struggled against similar tactics too.

The Bulk wrote:Ballack shouldn't have ducked when Iniesta hit the shot. If he'd stayed tall it seems as if it would probably have hit him. Maybe not, but just sort of get impression that ducking wasn't best thing to do.

Could have been a reaction rather than a thought out movement I guess.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/2482725/

Just watched the highlights there...

Yeah that's a fair shout right there, even a slight jump might have prevented what happened. But ducking out of the way!
German bravery for you I guess

Also just going back to the Dani Alves...

I'm a big fan of his but as I and everybody said, he was piss poor last night. But found it funny his only real decent cross of the night caused mayhem in the Chelsea defence that led to the goal

Brian2468 wrote:

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

Chelsea at this time are not set up to play any other way and win trophies, They have no top attacking players other than Drogba

I saw them take the game to Liverpool and comfortably won at Anfield, something Barca would struggle to do. Why didn't they play that way at home? I understand going negative away from home, but not at home especially with the quality in their side.

The Professor wrote:

L-r d wrote:

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

When your oppenent has a clear weakness it makes sense to play a certain way to exploit that. When you're still going to create a host of chances then i think it would defy logic to play any other way. There was a cl final at stake. Barca have to learn to break down these teams or teams can play like that all night long.

But aside from that. I was wondering if your view on Messi has changed at all? I thought he could be unplayable but he was easily enough taken out of it by Chelsea and only really dribbled well in areas that were not overly dangerous.

One of Barca's major weakness is defending set pieces - attack them and try to win a lot of corners and free kicks around their box. Chelsea didn't do this, they sat back hoping to capitalise on a cock up from one of Barca's defenders. Pure cowardice.

Alves is known to be a very adventurous defender and is a major contributor to Barca's attacks(as poor as he was he provided the cross that eventually led to the goal) - get a winger that could go at him, force him to sit and u neutralise half of Braca's most dangerous and productive flank. But instead we got Malouda playing at LB, giving Alves all the room to attack and they eventually paid for it when he put in the cross that led to the goal.

Thing is, there were a lot of positive ways to exploit the weakness of this Barca side, but Hiddink chose for the most negative approach(ie the easiest and safest option). And he paid the price in the end.

My opinion on Messi is still the same - the best player in the world. Your boy Ronaldo would have struggled against similar tactics too.

Well i see it as smart tactics not cowardice. It wasn't really a case of hope for a mistake. More be direct and play a certain way with the ball, but get men behind the ball and not allow Barca to play their way without it. And it worked for 183 minutes, because of a goal then it doesn't change the fact it was the right tactics especially with the decisions beforehand. The fact is if Chelsea played an attaclking wingers then you're leaving Messi and Alves against Cole exposed it wouldn't be to wise for me when you don't have a great winger in the first place.

On Messi. I think to be the best player in the world you have to make a mark on the big stage, especially if your league is not at it's best. To me his finishing is not what i thought it was, and if you stop him dribbling in dangerous areas he's a bit lost. Ronaldo may have struggled but he has a more complete package and would have been dangerous with shots or from a set piece or a cross. We'll see in time. But i have changed my opinion i did think Messi was a better player than him but he isn't yet.

Anyway..









From the BBC:

2142: Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo is being surrounded by stewards and Didier Drogba comes on to wave an angry finger in his face, he's absolutely livid. His team-mates try to pull him away, but he's a big unit and they can't move him. He's waving his arms, flapping, having a go at everyone, and he's booked. Chelsea have been hard done by, but this behaviour is pathetic.

BBC Sport's Phil McNulty at Stamford Bridge: "Didier Drogba - whose lack of self-discipline saw him sent off in last season's Champions League final against Manchester United - marched on to the field in flip-flops to launch a senseless and pointless verbal assault on referee Tom Henning Ovrebo after the final whistle. He was still being restrained after receiving a yellow card and was held back as the Norwegian official made his way down the tunnel.

"The mood is already angry here inside Stamford Bridge and Drogba's behaviour does nothing but inflame the situation. He simply cannot help himself.

"Chelsea fans also threw flags at the officials and the Barcelona bench."



While I feel sorry for certain players, well only Essien and the posters here who are decent, can't help but smile thinking back to the QF after both legs the Chelsea fans singing "Fuck Your History, We're Going To Rome" Arsenal saying likewise after Ade's goal last year too about going to Moscow

L-r d wrote:

The Professor wrote:

L-r d wrote:

The Professor wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Whats cowardly about being in your positions, marking your runners and then trying to break quickly when you have the ball and create openings, which they did in the bucket load.

Barca have more to be ashamed about than Chelsea in this game. They were terrible.

It's cowardly for a team as good as Chelsea to sit back(ie hand the initiative to their opponents) and try to capitalise on their mistakes. It far easier playing this way, and no wonder they were the ones that created almost all the chances. Barca could have opted for the same tactics and we'd have had an even more boring game.

I expect teams on very low budgets to do this, not Chelsea(with a billionaire owner who can buy pretty every player he wants). They are a quality side who man for man are probably as good as any other. They can attack quality teams and win games - see Liverpool away. Why they chose to play the way they did over two legs is out of pure cowardice, hence why I(just like supermadrid) have got no sympathy for them(sorry to their fans on here).

When your oppenent has a clear weakness it makes sense to play a certain way to exploit that. When you're still going to create a host of chances then i think it would defy logic to play any other way. There was a cl final at stake. Barca have to learn to break down these teams or teams can play like that all night long.

But aside from that. I was wondering if your view on Messi has changed at all? I thought he could be unplayable but he was easily enough taken out of it by Chelsea and only really dribbled well in areas that were not overly dangerous.

One of Barca's major weakness is defending set pieces - attack them and try to win a lot of corners and free kicks around their box. Chelsea didn't do this, they sat back hoping to capitalise on a cock up from one of Barca's defenders. Pure cowardice.

Alves is known to be a very adventurous defender and is a major contributor to Barca's attacks(as poor as he was he provided the cross that eventually led to the goal) - get a winger that could go at him, force him to sit and u neutralise half of Braca's most dangerous and productive flank. But instead we got Malouda playing at LB, giving Alves all the room to attack and they eventually paid for it when he put in the cross that led to the goal.

Thing is, there were a lot of positive ways to exploit the weakness of this Barca side, but Hiddink chose for the most negative approach(ie the easiest and safest option). And he paid the price in the end.

My opinion on Messi is still the same - the best player in the world. Your boy Ronaldo would have struggled against similar tactics too.

Well i see it as smart tactics not cowardice. It wasn't really a case of hope for a mistake. More be direct and play a certain way with the ball, but get men behind the ball and not allow Barca to play their way without it. And it worked for 183 minutes, because of a goal then it doesn't change the fact it was the right tactics especially with the decisions beforehand. The fact is if Chelsea played an attaclking wingers then you're leaving Messi and Alves against Cole exposed it wouldn't be to wise for me when you don't have a great winger in the first place.

On Messi. I think to be the best player in the world you have to make a mark on the big stage, especially if your league is not at it's best. To me his finishing is not what i thought it was, and if you stop him dribbling in dangerous areas he's a bit lost. Ronaldo may have struggled but he has a more complete package and would have been dangerous with shots or from a set piece or a cross. We'll see in time. But i have changed my opinion i did think Messi was a better player than him but he isn't yet.

Ok, say Guardiola had said to his boys "We know they've got very slow CBs and we've got a lot of pace upfront, so lets put 10 men behind the ball and try to hit them on the break". As a neutral, how would u feel seeing two teams just passing the ball sideways and backwards with no chances created, hardly any corners, shot at goal etc? Wouldn't u have more sympathy for the team that shows more balls and goes for it?

Also you've got to think what the lack of CL is doing to Chelsea - it's become a mental block to them, furthermore it's the trophy Roman craves more than any other, and if you look at the ways they've gone out:

2009 - Robbed by Ref

2008 - Terry Slipping

2007 - Penalties in front of the Kop

2006 - Dodgy Del Horno Red Card + Ronaldinho brilliance

2005 - Luis Garcia Ghost Goal

2004 - Chucking away their brief lead against Monaco.

These things build up over time and a combination of bad luck + injustice does create it's toll. How long does this current team have? Several players are hitting or have already hit 30. They know the window is closing which explains a lot of the reaction tonight.

True enough the two biggest ones losing it tonight Ballack and Drogba are both coming to an end.

@ agooner just on the set pieces thing. They didn't do so great from the ones they got, and if they just kept going for corners and free kicks people would also accuse them of being cowards of playing the wrong way. So no win for them there.

The Ballack clip still has me cracking up!

barca win better for football

Be honest.

Who was screaming at the television, demanding Pep Guardiola change something, anything as the second half went on. Chelsea looked comfortable holding Barcelona at arms-length, albeit as comfortable as Sunderland looked holding Manchester United goalless for 90 minutes at Old Trafford earlier in the Premier League season.

At home and with the advantage handed to them by an exquisite strike of rare beauty from the left-foot of Michael Essien, Chelsea's task resembled that which faced them last week in Camp Nou. Stop Barcelona doing what they do best. Playing football.

And they did it. Barca did not have a single shot on goal. And they were denied at least two, maybe three, possibly four penalties. But the penalties should not be the whole story, even though the decisions of the Norwegian referee influenced the outcome beyond argument.

Chelsea did manage to unlock the Barcelona defence, with Eric Abidal in particular being heavy-legged. But they did not dominate. They played like an away side, twice. They chased the ball, like Jack Russells after pebbles. They could not string their passes together in either game, aside from Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack. They were harried and harassed into mistakes and allowed the Blaugrana to recycle possession time and time again.

When the team in yellow overturned the ball, even when requiring a goal of their own, they did the same thing with it. Over and over. They sought Lionel Messi, they sought Andres Iniesta, they looked to play one-twos off the delicate feet of Samuel Eto'o with his back to goal. Their task, after going one behind, did not change. And neither did their outlook, despite the lack of joy up front.

Armchair pundits the length of the continent would have wanted Guardiola to stir the pot and alter things. Another forward; Eidur Gudjohnsen perhaps. Withdraw and ineffective performer, Messi and Iniesta both foraged for impact in vain. Alex and John Terry in particular saw to that.

But is he capable? The young coach does not convince that he is possessed of the tactical nous to influence a game from the sidelines. He gives the impression of only being able to show his hand from the outset and trust entirely in the application of his players.

For his part, Guus Hiddink showed more innovation in his selections, even if they were each as pragmatic as the other. The Dutchman knew exactly what it would take to oust Barcelona from this competition and was only a minute away from achieving it. He deserves to be lauded and Chelsea will be weaker in his absence.

Then, a bolt from the blue, a breakthrough, a eureka. Essien missed a clearance off the back of a decent Daniel Alves cross. Two events that were conspicuous by their respective absences for nigh-on 180 minutes of football. And we had it. Messi - Iniesta - Pick It Out Petr.

One shot, one goal and a Champions League final. It did not come from a hack, hoof or a dubiously won penalty kick. It came from a trust in convictions and a willingness to stick by a plan.

Barcelona are a better football team than Chelsea. They proved that by limiting the Blues to containment and damage limitation. And Chelsea are not a third-tier side, visiting a Premier League ground in an FA Cup day out. They are a team of multi-million euro footballers and international captains.

For doing that, with ten men, Barcelona demand respect and admiration. Granted, with another referee, we could be relishing Chelsea and Manchester United, but then shouldn't the European Cup final pit the two best teams on the continent against each other?

Poor Hiddink--still paying for the way his South Korea cheated Spain and Italy out of wins in 2002.


So when he says things like in this article:

--------------------------------------------------

Hiddink fumes at Norwegian referee's display

By Soccernet Staff

May 6, 2009

* Comment
* Email
* Print

Chelsea manager Guus Hiddink said it would be impossible to prove claims UEFA did not want an all-English Champions League final.

GettyImages

Guus Hiddink and Didier Drogba argue with Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo

The London side were furious about a number of what they saw as clear penalties which were not given by referee Tom Ovrebo as Barcelona progressed on away goals thanks to a 1-1 draw at Stamford Bridge achieved with an injury-time leveller by Andres Iniesta.

According to Sky Sports, some of the Chelsea players were speculating afterwards that UEFA wanted to avoid a repeat of last year's all-Premier League final.

However Hiddink was careful not to be drawn on the claims, saying: ''Conspiracy is a very tough word and, if there is, you have to prove it.

''Obviously there is a lot written and said prior to this game. I can only mention what I see. I cannot say whether UEFA wouldn't like another English final.''

He added: ``They (referees) are human as well and everyone can be influenced by certain singing around, that could be possible. These are all half accusations. It's difficult to have a right opinion about that.''

Chelsea dominated the semi-final second leg and seemed to destined to seal a date with Manchester United for the second year running after Michael Essien's wonder strike, particularly when Eric Abidal was dismissed for a challenge on Nicolas Anelka.

But the referee denied Chelsea a number of spot-kicks for perceived offences including a shirt pull on Didier Drogba and handballs by Gerard Pique and Samuel Eto'o.

Hiddink said: "We are so disappointed because there are two issues. One is that we could have and should have scored in some open situations and because we talk a lot about the not given penalties. Didier's shirt-pulling is okay, we had [Thierry] Henry's situation in Barcelona, okay. But there were three other situations that were so clear. I shall not say what we really feel but it's injustice.

"It's not just that you can be mistaken. It's difficult, for instance, for the red card of Abidal on Anelka - difficult because, I think, Anelka was through, he touched with his left leg Anelka. You can discuss these situations for a referee.

"But if you have seen clearly and he was five yards [away], if you have seen clearly the ball on Pique... If he was blocked there is also an assistant referee. There's one I think with the shot on Eto'o and he's turning around and you have to have your arms down. Those two situations make you think.''

He continued: "The [Florent] Malouda situation in the first half when they were struggling a bit. They go in the box, [the referee] had a perfect view, and he was grabbed inside the box.

"That's also a penalty, which means there were three, four clear situations, not just one doubtful as the Henry situation was in Barcelona, let's be honest. Nevertheless, we should have scored in other situations as well. Whether people don't like an all-English final or not, we should have scored also.''

There were ugly scenes in stoppage time and at the final whistle as players including Michael Ballack and Drogba confronted the referee.

The Ivory Coast forward also swore audibly on television as he screamed at the camera the situation was a "disgrace''.

But Hiddink vowed to stand by his players, saying: "I can fully understand in the emotion of the game, as long as they don't touch him, I can fully understand this disappointment. It's not just one decision in doubt but it's several not made decisions.

"I can fully understand and I protect my players for this when they have this emotion, just with loads of energy and adrenaline in their bodies.''

Chelsea striker Didier Drogba was furious after the game and labelled referee Tom Henning Ovrebo a "disgrace''.

The Ivory Coast frontman, who was unhappy after being subbed in 72nd minute, approached the referee after the game.

He then turned to the television camera, shouting that the official was a "f****** disgrace''.

Chelsea fans also threw flags at the officials and the Barcelona bench.

In the Champions League final last season against Manchester United, Drogba was sent off for raising his hands to Nemanja Vidic.

(soccernet)

---------------------------------

I have to laugh.

Messiah wrote:barca win better for football

Be honest.

Who was screaming at the television, demanding Pep Guardiola change something, anything as the second half went on. Chelsea looked comfortable holding Barcelona at arms-length, albeit as comfortable as Sunderland looked holding Manchester United goalless for 90 minutes at Old Trafford earlier in the Premier League season.

At home and with the advantage handed to them by an exquisite strike of rare beauty from the left-foot of Michael Essien, Chelsea's task resembled that which faced them last week in Camp Nou. Stop Barcelona doing what they do best. Playing football.

And they did it. Barca did not have a single shot on goal. And they were denied at least two, maybe three, possibly four penalties. But the penalties should not be the whole story, even though the decisions of the Norwegian referee influenced the outcome beyond argument.

Chelsea did manage to unlock the Barcelona defence, with Eric Abidal in particular being heavy-legged. But they did not dominate. They played like an away side, twice. They chased the ball, like Jack Russells after pebbles. They could not string their passes together in either game, aside from Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack. They were harried and harassed into mistakes and allowed the Blaugrana to recycle possession time and time again.

When the team in yellow overturned the ball, even when requiring a goal of their own, they did the same thing with it. Over and over. They sought Lionel Messi, they sought Andres Iniesta, they looked to play one-twos off the delicate feet of Samuel Eto'o with his back to goal. Their task, after going one behind, did not change. And neither did their outlook, despite the lack of joy up front.

Armchair pundits the length of the continent would have wanted Guardiola to stir the pot and alter things. Another forward; Eidur Gudjohnsen perhaps. Withdraw and ineffective performer, Messi and Iniesta both foraged for impact in vain. Alex and John Terry in particular saw to that.

But is he capable? The young coach does not convince that he is possessed of the tactical nous to influence a game from the sidelines. He gives the impression of only being able to show his hand from the outset and trust entirely in the application of his players.

For his part, Guus Hiddink showed more innovation in his selections, even if they were each as pragmatic as the other. The Dutchman knew exactly what it would take to oust Barcelona from this competition and was only a minute away from achieving it. He deserves to be lauded and Chelsea will be weaker in his absence.

Then, a bolt from the blue, a breakthrough, a eureka. Essien missed a clearance off the back of a decent Daniel Alves cross. Two events that were conspicuous by their respective absences for nigh-on 180 minutes of football. And we had it. Messi - Iniesta - Pick It Out Petr.

One shot, one goal and a Champions League final. It did not come from a hack, hoof or a dubiously won penalty kick. It came from a trust in convictions and a willingness to stick by a plan.

Barcelona are a better football team than Chelsea. They proved that by limiting the Blues to containment and damage limitation. And Chelsea are not a third-tier side, visiting a Premier League ground in an FA Cup day out. They are a team of multi-million euro footballers and international captains.

For doing that, with ten men, Barcelona demand respect and admiration. Granted, with another referee, we could be relishing Chelsea and Manchester United, but then shouldn't the European Cup final pit the two best teams on the continent against each other?

Not to go in circles. But what's all this mad credit to Barca for playing okish when down to 10 men?

Chelsea of course would play the same way if they kept 11 out for so long that way, why jeopardise the lead and go for it? Besides Chelsea did have more attacks and the Pique handball came from one. I think it's bizarre as hell all these journalists and such thinking Barca were commendable for still attacking with 10 men, they had to they were losing, and Chelsea ALLOWED them that luxury...with good reason.

Dominating games is not a reason to be in the final. Having a killer edge is. Otherwise everybody would just go buy a midfield of cesc-alonso-xavi-iniesta types. Having more possesion is not a sign a team deserves to win, especially in these circumstances.

I don't quite get this talk about Barcelona playing better either. We were absolutely pants, seemed to over-hit every cross, played with lead in our boots, extremely shaky in the back with Pique trying desperately to organize the makeshift defence, and not creating a single chance... until the goal of course.

Sometimes football isn't fair and maybe Hiddink knows conspiracies actually exist, from his South Korea days, so maybe he has a right to question the ref.

Why are people saying Chelsea deserved to go through? Have you all forgotten the first leg? Chelsea played a 10 man defence!

Maybe Chelsea should have had 1 or two penalties, but Abidal shouldn't have been sent off... Chelsea did have more chances, but Barça had more possession. End of the day, you can't talk about who "deserves" to go through here. The team that deserves to go through is the team that did.

Lucky Barca

So much for being 'the best team in the world'

It took you 191 minutes to score ONE goal against the EPL's third best team.

I thought you would continue yesterday's theme by saying it was a blatant case of shoplifting. And that Essien's goal was right off the top shelf

theflyingfrenchman wrote:Why are people saying Chelsea deserved to go through? Have you all forgotten the first leg? Chelsea played a 10 man defence!

Maybe Chelsea should have had 1 or two penalties, but Abidal shouldn't have been sent off... Chelsea did have more chances, but Barça had more possession. End of the day, you can't talk about who "deserves" to go through here. The team that deserves to go through is the team that did.

Overall this tie was a draw. Barca should have won the first leg, Chelsea the secong.

About the ref: Chelsea had 2 penalties last night. Barca had one at Nou Camp and the red card for Abidal.

I feel sorry for Chelsea. This should have been the final.

If Essien hadn't scored would chelsea have been playing for penalties?

The thing that bothered me most about Chelsea was how many times they lost the ball. They were awful yet created chances so deserved to go through?

Same old Farca always cheating.

Chelsea had a lot of chances. On any other day, Drogba, Anelka and Malouda would have all scored to win 3-0 or 4-0. Valdes made a decent save, but I think poor finishing by Chelsea strikers came back to haunt them. Without forgetting Drogba's 1-on-1 in Nou camp.