How strong is this seasons Champions League?

Saintsarama KCMG wrote:In other words, unless teams play open enough for your own team to be successful, you don't find it entertaining?

Barca don't play too well in tight games, a lot of CL games this season have been tight, ergo you are at a disadvantage. You've got used to playing crap Spanish sides that can't defend for toffee and don't get the same instant gratification from the more cultured and careful Champions League. I found your game against Liverpool the other night utterly enthralling...

i dont want teams that all play attacking football because that would be too predictible and mean that we would appreciate attacking teams. but what is worst is when no teams really dares to attack and rather play it the game on tactics only give little freedom and then hope for the best. we need balance and currently we have no freedom. its exciting to watch attacking teams play defensive teams too but even that we dont see anymore. my own team is an embarresment in this department. and this is the same in international football. and i dont belive when people say that small teams can only play defensive because they dont have great players. thats crap. it can sometimes be the case but look at psv in 2004 and getafe,reading,catania in the leagus for evidence that small teams can attack.

Rez wrote:And even then Querioz is trying his best to turn us into the other teams, when we play in Europe. But yeah league wise were the only true attacking team left as were the only team that play with 5 out of 6 attacking players and two attacking side backs.

Except against Arsenal? And Liverpool? And Chelsea? Effectively what Saints said:-

Saintsarama KCMG wrote:In other words, unless teams play open enough for your own team to be successful, you don't find it entertaining?

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

I already wrote that Liverpool was by far the better team, and I have no problem in that we deservedly went out against them.. What I miss are teams that thrieve on attacking football.

I'll quote myself form the other thread as I can't be bothered to write it again:

110% wrote:

shazlx wrote:Are people overrating Chelsea because they beat an Eto'o-less Barca? They are up there but the way they have played throughout the season they should not be clear favourites.
IMO the favourites are.

Liverpool - because of Benitez and but the time they play their next game Mascherano should have adapted somewhat to the team.

Valencia - saw off the strongest squad in the competition, if they are not heavily punished and they play to their capabilities then they should make it to the final.

Roma - have a feeling that they will do an Arsenal of last season and put the disappointments of previous seasons behind them.

I kind of agree with what you say, but it looks like ballack and sheva may be finding their form, and they had players like robben and cole out for ages with injury and robben seems to be back now, so I would have:
Chelsea
Liverpool
Valencia
Roma
then the others

Incidentally for all the negative talk about entertaining football Liverpool, Valencia and Roma have played amongst the best football in the CL so far. Milan, Manu and PSV amongst the worst, so it's kind of ironic (or moronic) of their fans to make comments about chelsea and liverpool playing boring.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

I already wrote that Liverpool was by far the better team, and I have no problem in that we deservedly went out against them.. What I miss are teams that thrieve on attacking football.

they attacked the shit out of you? they made valdez look like your best player which is a kind of a miracle in itself, what more do you want?

The only team that caught my eye this year was Werder Bremen.. the rest, including Barcelona, have been dull to watch.

Well pointed out 110%. Too many clichés here.

If you want some negative teams knocked out then pray for a United-Chelsea quater final

Though in Chelsea's defence, they've actually played 2 upfront in most games this year.

Parks lives wrote:Thats why we must all pray for Chelsea vs Liverpool and put it on Channel 5 as well.

Oh god...

Pat Nevin would still be better than Andy Townsend...

Anyone see Messi's comments? Liverpool won because of 'ugly football'

Saw loser

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

I already wrote that Liverpool was by far the better team, and I have no problem in that we deservedly went out against them.. What I miss are teams that thrieve on attacking football.

they attacked the shit out of you? they made valdez look like your best player which is a kind of a miracle in itself, what more do you want?

Come on we were playing a 3-4-3 .. we had to take chances in the game and of course it showed that there was plenty of space at the back. At the Camp Nou they scored on two mistakes of ours, not the result of us being overcome by sheer attacking force..

If Liverpool is such a wonderful attacking side then why haven't they (or other teams for that matter) scored tonnes of goals in this year's tournament?

[quote="Oleguerisntthatbad"]

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

I already wrote that Liverpool was by far the better team, and I have no problem in that we deservedly went out against them.. What I miss are teams that thrieve on attacking football.

they attacked the shit out of you? they made valdez look like your best player which is a kind of a miracle in itself, what more do you want?

Come on we were playing a 3-4-3 .. we had to take chances in the game and of course it showed that there was plenty of space at the back. At the Camp Nou they scored on two mistakes of ours, not the result of us being overcome by sheer attacking force..

If Liverpool is such a wonderful attacking side then why haven't they (or other teams for that matter) scored tonnes of goals in this year's tournament?[quote]

It doesn't matter how good you are attacking wise, if the opposition have a plan to defend and defend well then goals will not be scored easily

If things go well, Werder and Stuttgart will both qualify for the CL next year. Both are very attacking teams. Werder should be known by now, but Stuttgart have a similar philosophy (they see us as a role model in this respect), and a couple of very promising youngsters from their own excellent youth academy that could bring back some excitement to this rather tactical CL these days.

110% wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:I think it has been a poor CL so far.

Partly because we are out but mostly because it is a year of "Safety First" football.

No teams have caught my eye (expect for Werder but I already knew their style), and I haven't though "These guys are great!!". No young players have been a revelation. All games end with at most 2-3 goals..

I think it has been pretty boring watching games that didn't involve your own team because it has been overly tactical and physical.

It's a bit mean to say Liverpool didnt catch your eye, who else has outplayed you so much in recent years?

You are implying that they are just physical, but they also played better football than barcelona.

what people forget is that they did it with counter attacking football and with empashis(sp) on the defence. im not sure they could play the samme football if they had the role of being the team which had the ball. counterattacking football is good too but the thing is it will only be goo when one other teams decidedes to attack because if not then it will be two teams canceling each other out ect.liverpoo-chelsea. and man utd i think are one of the more attacking teams this year along with roma. after i dont really know. liverpool are always entertaining at home they need to meet teams that are offensive.

is there less goals scored this year compared to other years?

maybe it is just that the strikers are not performing to their usual standards this year, think eto'o, sheva, henry, ronaldo etc

same goes for liverpool, poor finishing meant that instead of comfortably winning that game they lost, so the number of goals did not in any way reflect the attacking nature of the game.

same with arsenal-PSV etc

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:
If Liverpool is such a wonderful attacking side then why haven't they (or other teams for that matter) scored tonnes of goals in this year's tournament?

It's too cagey. But we've had 2 exciting games with Galatasary, though one was when nothing was on the line.

I actually like the defensive, tactical nature of the CL. It blows the whole competition open.

If the best attacking players in the world can't cope in a pressure enviroment against teams that are there to stiffle them, they're clearly not the best in the world. I think all the extremely negative teams went out in the group stages. The pragmatic teams are the ones who are left. Pragmatism shouldn't be confused with negativity.

And frankly, I find quality defending as good to watch as goals against shit defences.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when a tournament where defenders are the stand-out players is considered poor. If people are bored of watching defenders then perhaps they should switch to basketball.

Oh, and for all this talk about players who aren't "special" - Kaká, the best player in the world, remains the top scorer along with Didier Drogba.

Luis wrote:Anyone see Messi's comments? Liverpool won because of 'ugly football'

Saw loser

Did he? He hasn't spoken to the press in Spain.. All the others have said
that the tie was over after the first leg. Nothing about whether they thought Liverpool played "ugly football"..

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:

Luis wrote:Anyone see Messi's comments? Liverpool won because of 'ugly football'

Saw loser

Did he? He hasn't spoken to the press in Spain.. All the others have said
that the tie was over after the first leg. Nothing about whether they thought Liverpool played "ugly football"..

was on the BBC site.

110% wrote:I'll quote myself form the other thread as I can't be bothered to write it again:

110% wrote:

shazlx wrote:Are people overrating Chelsea because they beat an Eto'o-less Barca? They are up there but the way they have played throughout the season they should not be clear favourites.
IMO the favourites are.

Liverpool - because of Benitez and but the time they play their next game Mascherano should have adapted somewhat to the team.

Valencia - saw off the strongest squad in the competition, if they are not heavily punished and they play to their capabilities then they should make it to the final.

Roma - have a feeling that they will do an Arsenal of last season and put the disappointments of previous seasons behind them.

I kind of agree with what you say, but it looks like ballack and sheva may be finding their form, and they had players like robben and cole out for ages with injury and robben seems to be back now, so I would have:
Chelsea
Liverpool
Valencia
Roma
then the others

Incidentally for all the negative talk about entertaining football Liverpool, Valencia and Roma have played amongst the best football in the CL so far. Milan, Manu and PSV amongst the worst, so it's kind of ironic (or moronic) of their fans to make comments about chelsea and liverpool playing boring.

Don't forget, it was a Cech-less Chelsea (and no Cudicini as replacement either) who beat Barca.

As important as Eto'o is for Barca, Cech is equally important for Chelsea. Having no Cech or Cudicini against Barca, would be like Barca playing with no Eto'o or Gudjohnsen against Chelsea.

Luis wrote:
It doesn't matter how good you are attacking wise, if the opposition have a plan to defend and defend well then goals will not be scored easily

And this is exactly what I am complaining about.. I just boring to watch a game of chess.. it is like the bad old days of catenaccio..

Well that's your opinion, I agree with Obi here, I love to see good defending sometimes, it's much better than a big team ripping apart a small team 4 or 5-0 isn't it?

Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

Obispo wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:
If Liverpool is such a wonderful attacking side then why haven't they (or other teams for that matter) scored tonnes of goals in this year's tournament?

It's too cagey. But we've had 2 exciting games with Galatasary, though one was when nothing was on the line.

I actually like the defensive, tactical nature of the CL. It blows the whole competition open.

If the best attacking players in the world can't cope in a pressure enviroment against teams that are there to stiffle them, they're clearly not the best in the world. I think all the extremely negative teams went out in the group stages. The pragmatic teams are the ones who are left. Pragmatism shouldn't be confused with negativity.

And frankly, I find quality defending as good to watch as goals against shit defences.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when a tournament where defenders are the stand-out players is considered poor. If people are bored of watching defenders then perhaps they should switch to basketball.

Oh, and for all this talk about players who aren't "special" - Kaká, the best player in the world, remains the top scorer along with Didier Drogba.

i meant revalations and kaka has been here for some years.and also im not saying that tactical thing has to go out because i love a high quality tactical affair but not when its all the times with teams that are desperate. liverpool are good at it and there its easier but also they need to play attacking teams for it to look good. and noone is saying that all teams should attack. we just need teams that attack and teams that defend because currently we have too many teams that look at the other teams and hold back.

blut
have stuttgard really been that good offensive. its hard to belive because i saw alot of them last season where they were so bad under trappatoni. on the other gomez seemed lik he would never be good and now watch him.

blutgraetsche wrote:Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

The best matches are those when players actually put on their goal scoring boots. After all, negative football only exists because attacking teams simply aren't clinical enough, if they are the complexion of a game changes in the matter of minutes. Once there's a significant risk involved negativity is thrown out the window.

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
blut
have stuttgard really been that good offensive. its hard to belive because i saw alot of them last season where they were so bad under trappatoni. on the other gomez seemed lik he would never be good and now watch him.

They were awful under Trappatoni, but Trap is history. This season, they have a new coach (Armin Veh) who believes in attacking football, and that's what they have shown all season really.

They have a couple of exciting youngsters like Gomez, Hilbert, Khedira, Tasci and others. Gomez is a great talent, believe me.

Controversy wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

The best matches are those when players actually put on their goal scoring boots. After all, negative football only exists because attacking teams simply aren't clinical enough, if they are the complexion of a game changes in the matter of minutes. Once there's a significant risk involved negativity is thrown out the window.

i would say it is when teams come out and try to win with all they can and not hope for a result which is what i see nowadays. few teams dare to take risks and thats mostly the problem. any team are ready to defend for their lives but rarely do you see a team come out and try and attack a team.

Controversy wrote:

Rez wrote:And even then Querioz is trying his best to turn us into the other teams, when we play in Europe. But yeah league wise were the only true attacking team left as were the only team that play with 5 out of 6 attacking players and two attacking side backs.

Except against Arsenal? And Liverpool? And Chelsea? Effectively what Saints said:-

Saintsarama KCMG wrote:In other words, unless teams play open enough for your own team to be successful, you don't find it entertaining?

United played Evra, G Neville, Scholes, Giggs, Ronaldo, Rooney, Saha/Larrsson in all these games apart from Liverpool and Arsenal due to injuries. Fergie didnt drop any of the attacking players for a DM. The positions of the players changed as the game progressed to reflect the situation of the game. So I dont see your point?

How many teams left in the CL dont play with a true DM, play with two out and out wingers with 5 out of the 6 front players who can/have play/ed up front. The team is built to entertain and score goals and the prem table shows that.

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:

Controversy wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

The best matches are those when players actually put on their goal scoring boots. After all, negative football only exists because attacking teams simply aren't clinical enough, if they are the complexion of a game changes in the matter of minutes. Once there's a significant risk involved negativity is thrown out the window.

i would say it is when teams come out and try to win with all they can and not hope for a result which is what i see nowadays. few teams dare to take risks and thats mostly the problem. any team are ready to defend for their lives but rarely do you see a team come out and try and attack a team.

I agree with you, teams play not to lose, not to win anymore. Even our great clubs have sacrificed the gung ho attacking, beautiful football that is synonmous with United/Real (United to a much lesser extent). Its not good for the neutral viewer.

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:

Controversy wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

The best matches are those when players actually put on their goal scoring boots. After all, negative football only exists because attacking teams simply aren't clinical enough, if they are the complexion of a game changes in the matter of minutes. Once there's a significant risk involved negativity is thrown out the window.

i would say it is when teams come out and try to win with all they can and not hope for a result which is what i see nowadays. few teams dare to take risks and thats mostly the problem. any team are ready to defend for their lives but rarely do you see a team come out and try and attack a team.

It's never hope though. It's an expectation that teams will chuck away chances. There is a chronic lack of high quality finishing and while this continues to occur negative football will remain. Defenders have simply improved and strikers are yet to catch up with these new expectations, it's only natural there is a problem.

Controversy wrote:

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:

Controversy wrote:

blutgraetsche wrote:Obispo has a point, I actually like both myself, or more precisely, I can appreciate a good tactical ("pragmatic") match also, despite my strong preference for attacking football. But (big but(t), it gets boring if all teams play a similar type of football. We need more variety.

The best matches are usually those between teams that have a different philosophy. Variety is always a plus.

The best matches are those when players actually put on their goal scoring boots. After all, negative football only exists because attacking teams simply aren't clinical enough, if they are the complexion of a game changes in the matter of minutes. Once there's a significant risk involved negativity is thrown out the window.

i would say it is when teams come out and try to win with all they can and not hope for a result which is what i see nowadays. few teams dare to take risks and thats mostly the problem. any team are ready to defend for their lives but rarely do you see a team come out and try and attack a team.

It's never hope though. It's an expectation that teams will chuck away chances. There is a chronic lack of high quality finishing and while this continues to occur negative football will remain. Defenders have simply improved and strikers are yet to catch up with these new expectations, it's only natural there is a problem.

your point about strikers is that they dont score on too many chances. well the way i see team are making it very hard to a striker these days. you have to work your self to death and get no back up and then strike on the few chances you get. the fact that teams today are very relient on their strikers hitting their few chances they get is proof that teams dont go out to try and create chances but to defend and rely on the few chances that teams will get in a match.and a game without any goals can be great. its about chances that is what makes games fun. not scoring on one of two goals you get and then play even more defensive.