2011/12 UEFA Champions League - Semifinals 1st & 2nd Leg

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

Gabriel Hanot had thought it all through. When the football editor of L’Equipe, back in the early 1950s, dreamed up the European Champions Club Cup – on the model of the pre-war Mitropa Cup – he knew exactly how the venue for the final would be decided.

The first final would be played in Paris, at the old Parc des Princes, because the competition enjoyed a French genesis. After that, thought Hanot and his colleagues, the winners should enjoy the bonus not only of an automatic place in the competition the next season but also the right to host the final.

That worked for just two seasons. The Parc, indeed, hosted the first final in 1956 in which Reims lost 4-3 to Real Madrid. As per 'The Plan', Madrid accepted the charge of hosting the 1957 final.

But Madrid also won the second final, 2-0 against Fiorentina in their own Estadio Santiago Bernabeu.

Fledgling European federation Uefa, which had taken over organisation of the competition, had to come up with a new format. Hence it was resolved that the venue for the final would be decided in advance and would, hopefully in most cases, prove a neutral choice.

Remarkably, considering that the European Cup was launched all of 57 years ago, only on three occasions has it been staged in the home stadium of one of the finalists. This season, of course, could be a fourth occasion because Bayern Munich are just 90 minutes away from going ‘home’ to a Champions League final in their own Allianz Arena.

That shadow of expectation has been looming over Germany’s record champions for almost two seasons now. At the start of last year club chief Uli Hoeness, aware of the Allianz prospect, was talking up the importance of finishing in the 2010-11 Champions League slots at the end of the Bundesliga season.

This is the reason Louis van Gaal was sacked in the spring of last year: Bayern were slipping out of the top three and Hoeness could not countenance the idea of being a mere spectator at ‘his’ Champions League Final.

That may still prove the case but at least Bayern have progressed within sight of that date with destiny.

The first team to enjoy the luxury of their own familiar dressing room, after Madrid in 1957, were Inter in 1965. They were at home in the final against Benfica in a travesty of a match. Torrential rain had flooded San Siro. If it had been a domestic league or cup match it would have been postponed. Instead, the trappings of the occasion demanded that it went ahead.

Benfica were damaged far more severely than Inter. Eusebio, Mario Coluna & Co. played expansive attacking football; Inter were the ultimate man-marking, sweeper-secured, counter-attacking outfit. The conditions worked against the Portuguese, in favour of the Italians.

Worse for the Portuguese side, in the days before substitutes, goalkeeper Alberto Costa Pereira was injured in the first half and centre-back Germano had to go in goal. Inter’s Brazilian right winger Jair da Costa scored the only goal just before half-time and the 10 men of Benfica were duly drowned out.

Coincidentally, Italy was host nation the next – and last – time that one of the finalists were hosts. That was in 1984 when Roma, in their own Stadio Olimpico, were beneficiaries of the supposed advantage, against Liverpool.

The weight of fans’ expectation proved fatally destructive for Roma. Coach Nils Liedholm’s men were fortunate to be on terms at 1-1 at the end of extra time and the final went to penalties for the first time in its history.

Nerves, assisted by the shaky-leg antics of Liverpool keeper Bruce Grobbelaar, beat Roma as much as Liverpool’s cool heads in the shootout. Star midfielder Paulo Roberto Falcao refused to take a kick at all while Italian World Cup-winners Bruno Conti and Francesco Graziani both shot over the bar.

The overall score then: Hosts 2-1 Visitors.

The score ratio is similar (5:3) when counting occasions on which one of the finalists has come from the host country, though not city.

‘Home nation’ wins were recorded by Manchester United (Wembley, 1968), Ajax (Rotterdam, 1972), Liverpool (Wembley, 1978), Juventus (Rome, 1996) and Borussia Dortmund (Munich, 1997) while ‘home nation’ losers were Stade Reims back in 1956 (in Paris) followed by Barcelona (Seville, 1986) and Manchester United (Wembley, 2011).

Adding the two scores together computes at 7:4 on. Bayern coach Jupp Heynckes would surely take those odds ... if, of course, his men can hold out against Real in Madrid.

Disco Benny wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

That first sentence How old are you?

Don't kid yourself old plum - even if Chelsea played superb attacking football, you wouldn't support them. Their style is less relevant than the fact they're from the DPL. You showed your hand beautifully when you were failing to give Arsenal even a sliver of credit for attacking Milan at home in the second round and making it a wholly enjoyable tie for the neutral.

Nowt wrong with your stance of being an EPL-hater if you have the balls to admit it, but spare us the deceitful illusion that your allegiances are based purely on a personal crusade for all that is pure and wholesome

Fade out wrote:Arsenal lost 4-0 because of mistakes (even their best defenders, Koscileny & Sagna had shockers) too. So Milan too won by shite football.

R.I.P Football wrote:

Disco Benny wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

That first sentence How old are you?

Don't kid yourself old plum - even if Chelsea played superb attacking football, you wouldn't support them. Their style is less relevant than the fact they're from the DPL. You showed your hand beautifully when you were failing to give Arsenal even a sliver of credit for attacking Milan at home in the second round and making it a wholly enjoyable tie for the neutral.

Nowt wrong with your stance of being an EPL-hater if you have the balls to admit it, but spare us the deceitful illusion that your allegiances are based purely on a personal crusade for all that is pure and wholesome

As for you first question I'm old enough to know Scum when I see it.

Arsenal didn't have any choice but to go for it because they were getting beat 4 - 0. .Did they make the tie exciting by scoring 3 times? Yes.Did they score 3 goals by playing good football? No,they scored because Milan were complacent and all 3 goals were Milan mistakes,there was no good football on display from Arsenal,it was just gung ho run up the pitch like a headless chicken because we have nothing to lose then blast the ball in the general direction of the goal.Ones Milan woke up at half time they bossed the 2nd half and played some good possession football and made chances.

Last year when Arsenal beat us 2 - 1 I respected them because they played good football and they were brave.

R.I.P Football wrote:

Fade out wrote:Arsenal lost 4-0 because of mistakes (even their best defenders, Koscileny & Sagna had shockers) too. So Milan too won by shite football.

What you even think Boetings screamer was shit football?

Disco Benny wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:

Fade out wrote:Arsenal lost 4-0 because of mistakes (even their best defenders, Koscileny & Sagna had shockers) too. So Milan too won by shite football.

What you even think Boetings screamer was shit football?

So was Ramires' goal last night shit football?

You're a walking contradiction. Just admit there is only one decisive factor in all this "good" V "bad". You'll retain more respect that way

Fade out wrote:Boateng goal down to poor mistake by the legend.
Ibra dribbling as Sagna/Koscileny combine to ball watch.
Robinho's goal down to Vermaellolen slip.
Ibra dive/exploiting Djokerou to get 4th. Come to think of it, they went through because of that dive.

So yeah, it was all based on mistakes.

Hlebagone wrote:
I genuinely think for games like this, Pep should play Messi wide. It would open far more space in the middle of the pitch as players would be drawn towards Messi, and there's always more space on the wing. Even last night, Barcelona wide players were often standing two meters inside the pitch. All that does is make Chelsea's job easier, as Barcelona are far more compact.

Fade out wrote:Not quite night and day.
Like the first leg,Koscielny free header, Thiago Silva's poor clearance, Mesbah's incompetence.
Would say the 2 leg tie was of poorest quality. Neither sides tactically & collectively good enough to go far.

Spare us anti/shite football garbage.

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

Fade out wrote:Boateng goal down to poor mistake by the legend.
Ibra dribbling as Sagna/Koscileny combine to ball watch.
Robinho's goal down to Vermaellolen slip.
Ibra dive/exploiting Djokerou to get 4th. Come to think of it, they went through because of that dive.

So yeah, it was all based on mistakes.

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

I have my reservations about Abramovich.

But this soulless mercenary club label is a bit silly. There is no sacrosanct definition of what constitutes good and right FOOTBALL, even if you put it in capitals. Precisely what was so good about Barcelona's profligacy? What was so bad about Ramirez's sumptuous goal? Goal of the two legs for me by a huge distance.

Your love for all things continental is premised on a bizarre combination of self-loathing and misplaced chauvinism. The death of football isn't a club's peculiar modus operandi on the pitch--as long as it is within the rules. Some would argue Busquets is the death of football.

The real death of football is big money, corruption, match-fixing, racism, violence, Blatter, and the very real death of players, who for some unknown reasons are collapsing.

Chelsea played to win. You may have preferred poetic suicide as a homage to Barcelona, but they had better things to do.

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:

R.I.P Football wrote:Xavi completed more passes today (161) than the entire Chelsea team ATTEMPTED (146)

Irrelevant statistic. Passing for the sake of keeping possession, passing without creativity and penetration, is more or less worthless in the attacking context. True dominance is not just measured in possession percentages and passing completion rate.

I wouldn't say irrelevant,it shows you that Chelsea are a anti-football team who rely on luck and giving opposition players dead legs on purpose.

Chelsea getting to a final is the worst thing that could happen for the neutrals who want to enjoy FOOTBALL.They will add nothing to the final at all,just another soulless mercenary club who have stolen money which belongs rightfully to the Russian people.

That's why I will be wanting Real to win if they get to a final,I respect Real Madrid even though I dislike them.I don't respect Chelsea.

I have my reservations about Abramovich.

But this soulless mercenary club label is a bit silly. There is no sacrosanct definition of what constitutes good and right FOOTBALL, even if you put it in capitals. Precisely what was so good about Barcelona's profligacy? What was so bad about Ramirez's sumptuous goal? Goal of the two legs for me by a huge distance.

Your love for all things continental is premised on a bizarre combination of self-loathing and misplaced chauvinism. The death of football isn't a club's peculiar modus operandi on the pitch--as long as it is within the rules. Some would argue Busquets is the death of football.

The real death of football is big money, corruption, match-fixing, racism, violence, Blatter, and the very real death of players, who for some unknown reasons are collapsing.

Chelsea played to win. You may have preferred poetic suicide as a homage to Barcelona, but they had better things to do.

Allez les rouges wrote:Hm not meaning to play devil's advocate or lower the tone of some good old high-mindedness but making the current dropping of players like flies (as if that it were) to be some kind of new trend is going a bit far, hmm?

And one does not have to be whingeing in the crassly bitter manner of a worm to be allowed to murmur some legitimate disgruntlement at the negativity and joylessness of some contemporary football particularly in the light of the record sums of money thrown around by the very practitioners of that style? Hm?