De Ja Vu Liverpool vs Chelsea Discussion

Benfica could do it.

You'll never beat my picture page

lu i hope you dont mind, i just added a little pic to the opening message!

YOU STUPID LITTLE c**t TAKE IT OFF RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

Best one yet:

Dirty

Luis wrote:Best one yet:

That is actually disturbing

oh the memories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdKxbMffDK4

terry and gallas in floods of

Grand master Benitez has right moves
The Liverpool manager believes he has the edge over his Chelsea rival - and recent results seem to prove him rightJonathan Northcroft
IGOR BISCAN, Djimi Traore, Antonio Nunez. Rafael Benitez is known to love chess; in 2005 he defeated Chelsea using pawns. Now he faces Jose Mourinho in a Champions League semi-final again and history makes the Kop crow. “If you’re going to win trophies, you have to beat the top teams. And Chelsea, too,” said a posting on a Liverpool message board.

The confidence is not necessarily backed up by figures, yet there is a feeling Benitez has Mourinho’s number. Since arriving at their clubs in 2004 the pair have gone head to head 13 times and Mourinho has won six, but he has enjoyed the greater resources and began with the better players. Over time, through squad-building and shrewd tactics, Benitez has chipped away at those advantages and shifted the power balance. Of the sides’ past four meetings, Liverpool won three. Benitez’s total of victories against The Special One is four - twice that of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger combined - and he defeated Mourinho in two of their three biggest contests to date: last year’s FA Cup semi-final and that Champions League semi-final in 2005. “We were good friends until we started winning, then he started changing his mind,” Benitez said. “It’s the same with managers of the top sides. He has good relationships with managers of the teams he beats.”

Were Benitez not so mild-mannered such a remark would be incendiary, for it disparages Ferguson as well as the Chelsea manager. Benitez normally avoids stirring the pot, but he has found it useful in his contests against Chelsea. Before the 2005 semi-final he began a campaign of getting under Mourinho’s skin when his then assistant, Paco Herrera, sent a message to the Chelsea manager through a mutual friend: “Let him know they are better than us. They’ve proved themselves in the league and if they played five matches they would win four. But also tell him they are going to win 1-0 in the first game but we’ll win 2-0 at Anfield.” Mourinho sent a reply — that Liverpool would win 1-0 at Stamford Bridge but Chelsea would triumph 2-0 at Anfield. It was supposed to be cheeky, but the Benitez camp believed a flaw in Mourinho’s approach had been exposed — he would be content to play safe at home, believing the tie could be won in the second leg. Benitez, who sent out a cautious side at Stamford Bridge, was happy to accommodate him. Bringing the semi-final down to one match at home suited Liverpool too.

Before the second leg, Benitez used the newspapers as his chessboard. “We were playing on Chelsea’s overconfidence by saying in the media, ‘We are not the favourites, they are the favourites’,” he recalled. He also used psychology with his players. Steven Gerrard wrote in his autobiography: “A touch of arrogance accompanied Chelsea and Benitez played brilliantly on it. ‘Chelsea’s players think they are in the final’, he told us. ‘Chelsea think they have beaten you. Now show them how wrong they are’.”

Expect Benitez to try something similar in 2007. He will be happy to just play Mourinho at football, Champions League football, that is, where his win percentages are far superior to those of Mourinho — and Ferguson and Wenger, for that matter. In Europe, Benitez is the master at chiselling out the right score, especially away, where he sets up Liverpool in such opposition-smothering fashion.

Chelsea have not only not beaten Liverpool in four Champions League contests, they haven’t scored, although Mourinho would retort that nor have Liverpool. On the subject of Luis Garcia’s “ghost goal” in the 2005 semi-final second leg, Gerrard wrote: “Chelsea moaned about it. Mourinho still does. I laugh. Chelsea’s complaints are ridiculous. If it wasn’t a goal Petr Cech would have been red-carded for bringing down Milan Baros. What would Chelsea have made of that? Down to 10 men, facing a penalty. Liverpool could have won 4-0. Chelsea got off lightly. They should keep quiet.”

There is no chance of silence from Mourinho or those at Stamford Bridge on April 25.

Rafa’s proud record In 13 matches against Jose Mourinho, Liverpool’s Rafael Benitez has enjoyed four victories - three in the past year - and three draws

zen and the art of wrote:
Chelsea have not only not beaten Liverpool in four Champions League contests, they haven’t scored, although Mourinho would retort that nor have Liverpool. On the subject of Luis Garcia’s “ghost goal” in the 2005 semi-final second leg, Gerrard wrote: “Chelsea moaned about it. Mourinho still does. I laugh. Chelsea’s complaints are ridiculous. If it wasn’t a goal Petr Cech would have been red-carded for bringing down Milan Baros. What would Chelsea have made of that? Down to 10 men, facing a penalty. Liverpool could have won 4-0. Chelsea got off lightly. They should keep quiet.”

4-0

For what it's worth, you may well have missed the penalty.

Nonsense. We had Didi Hamann then.

Let me start by saying that I'm still seriously irked by the notion that victory over Chelsea in the 2005 Champions League semi-final was controversial. Or, indeed, lucky.

This is the biggest fallacy in football, and it should never have been allowed its gross propagation. Like a genetically modified marrow left in a science fiction greenhouse to expand to the size of a blue whale, it has little to do with reality, and is massively out of proportion.

It amazes me that people still only talk about whether or not the ball crossed the line following Luis Garcia's instinctive prod – and not that the referee later admitted that had the goal not been given, he'd have brought play back to send off Petr Cech and award a penalty.

I'm sure even Jose Mourinho would have taken his chances at being just 1-0 down at that point in the game –– rather than facing the last 87 minutes starting with a Liverpool penalty and his team down to 10 men. And all in front of a raucous, baying Kop who were setting new decibel records. In other words, the referee did Chelsea a favour.

To remind people, this is what referee Lubos Michel said: “If my assistant referee had not signalled a goal, I would have given a penalty and sent off goalkeeper Petr Cech.”

Hardly any grey area in that statement. Why aren't these words better known? What irritates me is that Mourinho, his players and the press will unite behind the mythical version of events. I'd like to see more made of the true circumstances, as indicated by the referee.

Mourinho, who is reportedly still convinced Chelsea "won" the tie, will no doubt milk the 'we woz robbed' mantra.

(I'm not sure of the Portuguese for this phrase. Babelfish suggests nós fomos roubados, although translating it back into English gives 'we were stolen', which suggests Eidur Gudjohnsen was bundled by Rafa and Pako into the back of a Ford Transit in Walton Breck Road. Although maybe they did steal his contact lenses.)

The truth is that Chelsea, who didn't trouble Jerzy Dudek in either game, were beaten fair and square. And had Chelsea been victorious it would have been in part to Gudjohnsen's dive that ruled out Xabi Alonso from the 2nd leg. So please, an end to this myth.

I'm definitely more apprehensive this time around. Back then it was all part of a big adventure, an unexpected journey. The underdog status worked well. Now there's a more serious look about the Reds, and greater expectations as a result.

Revenge is a strange concept in football. It's why I'd be much more fearful of AC Milan should an 'Istanbul' re-match take place in Athens. They would want to put the record straight, as they see it.

However, the obverse is that they have to overcome the psychological blow of being defeated in such a humiliating fashion. I can recall all the talk in 2001 of Roma gaining revenge for the 1984 European Cup final defeat to the Reds. But Liverpool knocked them out of the Uefa Cup and Champions League in quick succession.

Revenge is all part of developing a siege mentality. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, or if you're perennially paranoid. It can unite. Liverpool wanted retribution for Gudjohnsen's dive in the first leg, and it ramped up the Anfield crowd that extra one percent in the return leg, from an already hysterically noisy starting point.

Since 2005 the Reds have gradually found parity with Chelsea, in one-off games at least. Three of the last four have been won, with Benítez's team the better performers on each occasion. And in the other, at Stamford Bridge, Liverpool had all the chances, and Chelsea, who had none of any note, scored out of nothing. Depending on your viewpoint that's the mark of a great team, or it's downright lucky.

That said, Chelsea will not be anywhere near limp as in the most recent meeting, which the Reds won at ease. And what's gone before won't totally dictate what happens now.

Of course, it can't hurt from a psychological standpoint that the two semi-finals in which the teams have recently met both ended in Liverpool's favour. It also can't hurt that Benítez has got the upper hand, tactically speaking, in the last few meetings. But Chelsea will have an immense hunger to win this tie. They are nothing if not determined.

The Londoners will be happier to be facing a Liverpool side they can now try to paint as favourites, to reduce the expectations on their own shoulders. But they'll also be putting themselves under greater pressure to win a first European Cup – something that was very much part of the Chelsea manager's remit. After all, they are the almost certainly the most expensively assembled team in Europe.

In footballing terms Chelsea were fully deserving of their recent league title successes, but now they absolutely crave that defining achievement that needs to follow: the kind with which Liverpool and Manchester United crowned their league dominance in 1968, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1984 and 1999.

Liverpool need to win this trophy as it's the last chance of silverware. But Chelsea, who could still fall at the last in the FA Cup and Premiership, haven't invested £500m to win nothing more this season than a League Cup.

I always felt Arsenal's greatest problem a few years back was that they wanted to win the Champions League too much; they knew they'd not get the credit they felt they deserved until they were European Champions. It was only once they clearly declined as a force – and the pressure diminished – that they managed to belatedly make the final.

An obsession with winning a trophy can prove counter-productive, although equally, a lack of hunger is no use to anyone. It's about finding the balance between wanting it badly enough, and not transmitting that to make the players too nervous. You need hunger, but only relaxed and focused footballers produce their best.

Everywhere you look in the Champions League there's a story waiting to be written for the Reds. It's Chelsea again – we all know the backstory there from recent seasons – and if successful, it's either Manchester United or AC Milan. The rivalry with United needs no mentioning, but the Italians are not just 'any other team' as far as the Reds are concerned; they feel they have a score to settle.

Silvio Berlusconi, Milan's President, is already quoted as saying he wants Liverpool in the final to "erase" the result from 2005. Perhaps it's another case of lost in translation, but nothing can change what happened then. However, you can understand his desire for his team to atone for their horrific collapse.

Then of course there's the Shevchenko factor – who, as Chelsea's record signing, will want to stop any possibility of a rematch of that 2005 final. Few players have been as guilty of such glaring misses in a major game as he was that night.

He showed then what a threat he can be in and around the box, in finding time and space, but ultimately missed his chances, and fluffed his penalty – one he approached with such an all-pervading air of resignation.

Again, it could go either way for the Ukrainian. He could be so haunted by Istanbul that a real mental block appears. Or he could find himself, as so many have over the years, the villain turned hero (or, from our perspective, hero turned villain). In football, there's almost always another occasion for redemption.

I never thought there could be a bigger night than Istanbul, and yet there's the possibility of something altogether more significant occurring should Chelsea be vanquished.

While the sheer drama of Istanbul will almost certainly never be topped by any team in any major final, beating Manchester United in Athens – even if it's the dullest match ever seen – would be by far and away the best night the club has ever known. Defeat would rank up there with the worst.

To be honest, at this stage I dare not even contemplate either scenario.

After all, the two teams meeting in the Youth Cup final is hard enough on the nerves.

Paul Tomkins

Your back?

Indeed Park, not that i ever really went, the more I thought about it the more I thought why, I might not post as much as I used to but i'm sure with the CL games coming up the board will be as popular as ever, Couldn't let the Serie A predictors down anyway could I?

With the CL games coming up its a good chance to get it back to normal.

Ye, to tell you the truth I wouldn't of been able to come on the past 24 hours anyway, I had revision last night and then I had footy after school today

1 week 'till the game, I was reading through Gerrard's Autobiography before and the way he described the night in 2005 brought it all back, back then as Tomkins put it in his article Liverpool were just on a wild adventure, they had nothing to lose they were the under-dog, we beat Olympiacos late on, Ok brilliant we were in the quarters, Leverkusen next, can we beat them? definately. Cruised it. Next we had Juventus in the quarters, Ok maybe a bit too far now, we can still get a respectable result but no one was expecting too much, performed brilliantly at home, away was a fantastic tactical performance, next up Chelsea.

Chelsea were a team so despised by Liverpool at that point that nothing could get the Liverpool fans and team more fired up for it, Chelsea had beaten Liverpool twice in the league, at Anfield a clear penalty should have been awarded to Liverpool but it didn't happen, The carling cup final was hard to stomach also.

Mourinho had spouted his usual stuff, which deepened the ill feeling.

The aim of the first leg was to get a draw, that was clear and that we did, but Gudjonsson Marred it by diving to get Alonso suspended for the return leg, That incensed a lot of Liverpool fans, particularly when afterwards there were claims that he had admitted he knew Alonso was on a booking and delibarately tried to get him suspended. Silly tosser.

The final thing that set up the Anfield tie was Kezman's words the day before 'I went to Anfield on new years day and I have to say I don't know what all the fuss is about', He got it when he came on at Anfield in the second leg, he had a shocker, never criticise Liverpool before visiting Anfield, never.

The point i'm trying to make is, I can't quite make up whether this tie is just as big, less big or bigger than in 2005, what's certain is that Liverpool have come a long long way since then, now a lot have us down as favorites, we now expect to get something from this tie, we have beaten Chelsea this season, we can match them.

I still don't like Chelsea as a football club, I respect them for their mentalitiy but I don't like their players or manager, I am sure that the atmosphere at Anfield in 2 weeks time will be close to 2005 and I am sure there will be talking points from this tie.

The question I ask to you, is this tie as big as 2005? does it mean more to Chelsea now? Does it still mean as much to Liverpool?

The team's I would pick:

First leg

Reina

Finnan, Carragher, Agger, Arbeloa

Pennant, Masch, Alonso, Riise

Gerrard

Kuyt

Second leg

Reina

Finnan, Carragher, Agger, Arbeloa

Pennant, Gerrard, Masch, Riise

...........Kuyt...........Crouch........

1st leg:

Cech

Diarra Carvalho Terry A Cole

Mikel

Ballack Lampard

J Cole

Drogba Shevchenko

2nd leg:

Cech

Diarra Carvalho Terry A Cole

Mikel

Essien Lampard

Ballack

Drogba Shevchenko

J Cole

S4P2 wrote:1st leg:

Cech

Diarra Carvalho Terry A Cole

Mikel

Ballack Lampard

J Cole

Drogba Shevchenko

2nd leg:

Cech

Diarra Carvalho Terry A Cole

Mikel

Essien Lampard

Ballack

Drogba Shevchenko

I reckon Essien'll be right back in the first leg.

I think this game for the fans doesn't hold quite the same intensity it did in 2005, however for both Managers the game holds more importance that 2005.

Benitez was new to the club and to win a Champions League was fabulously unexpected, now we are in the semi's again our expectations have risen, and we now have a real expectation to win, proving this to the new board will be as important to offer collateral in what they are investing.

Morinho it appears, will lose his job if he doesn't win the quadrouple or at the very least the Champions League and Premiership.

I imagine this to be a cracking game. But in total contrast to the one a few years ago.

He may well have been, shame he's suspended though.