The Football Thread 2011/12

[Irene Demova]

[Mafro]

There will be those that denigrate Chelsea's achievement in winning this game because they 'parked the bus.' Well, with probably four first-choice players unavailable, what exactly did you expect? Roberto Di Matteo set the team up in a manner that would stop Bayern defending, and it worked. The old argument that an 'ugly' win is somehow less worthy than a free-flowing, attacking one is ludicrously short-sighted. This was, largely an exceptional defensive performance, punctuated with a few bits of luck and some Didier Drogba inspiration.

Classic Football365.

Chelsea's defensive displays like tonight always remind me of the AI in FIFA games, piling the entire team into the box when you go anywhere near it with the ball.

[7256930752]

Scored more goals is one of the criteria i use but i suspect that may not be enouigh for you. Barcelona didn't win either of their games against Chelsea. Failed to capitalise against ten men at home when they only needed one more goal. Fail to see how this makes them more deserving? Same with Munich - for failing to convert their superiority in terms of possession and chances they lost but somehow deserved to win? They couldn't hold onto a lead for ten minutes and missed a penalty in extra time and then two in the shootout. How on earth did they deserve anything. They and Barca got what they deserved - strawberry float all.

Chelsea are worthy Champions. They turned their season around in splendid fashion - it;s just a shame that it comes at the expense of spurs.

Agreed. They got a bit of good fortune but nothing like the '12th man' Barca had against Chelsea in 2009. Both Barca and Bayern had a number of chances (both missed a penalty for strawberry float sake) but they failed to take them.

Speaking of 12th man, here is another piece of stunning refereeing from Norway:

[bear]

I just want all of you praising Chelsea's ability to park the bus to think twice before criticising Ireland's style of play at the Euros next month.

[Kanbei]

Scored more goals is one of the criteria i use but i suspect that may not be enouigh for you. Barcelona didn't win either of their games against Chelsea. Failed to capitalise against ten men at home when they only needed one more goal. Fail to see how this makes them more deserving? Same with Munich - for failing to convert their superiority in terms of possession and chances they lost but somehow deserved to win? They couldn't hold onto a lead for ten minutes and missed a penalty in extra time and then two in the shootout. How on earth did they deserve anything. They and Barca got what they deserved - strawberry float all.

Chelsea are worthy Champions. They turned their season around in splendid fashion - it;s just a shame that it comes at the expense of spurs.

Agreed. They got a bit of good fortune but nothing like the '12th man' Barca had against Chelsea in 2009. Both Barca and Bayern had a number of chances (both missed a penalty for strawberry float sake) but they failed to take them.

Speaking of 12th man, here is another piece of stunning refereeing from Norway:

What?!?!?! That is actually amazing on TWO counts, he's in his own half and he's about 10 yards onside anyway.

Seems that he thinks the guy on the left is an offside position(which he's not as he's not active)

[Cuttooth]

Defending isn't anti-football. Anti-football is dirty and cynical tackling, diving and feigning injury. Chelsea aren't above doing any of these things but not a lot of clubs are. It took a great defensive performance and a degree of luck to win the cup, but they are at the end of it the most deserving winners.

Bayern weren't cheated out of it or anything. They could have won three or four nil and won it easily but didn't.

[Denster]

The deservedly beat Napoli, Benfica and Barca and Munich.

Ok. I'll play. Who deserved to beat them?

Barcelona and Bayern. If you're going to argue about it, I'd like to know your definition of "deservedly".

They defended better than Barca and Bayern attacked, and took their chances. I said it earlier, but why is a decent defensive display better than a decent attacking display?

For starters, it's a poor excuse for a side that have poured money in buying the best players in both attack and defence, not to mention a £50million striker.
But besides that, it wasn't a particularly good defensive display in either game - if Messi or Robben had scored penalties, this wouldn't be their year. You can then add the chances that came off posts or were disallowed. "Luck" is an intangible thing – and I'm taking nothing away from Chelsea's determination and belief which played a massive part – but you only need to look at the misses from Barca and Munich to see these games have seen some very fortunate turn of events.

Barca and Munich went to create and were caught with sucker punches. I've got no appreciation for football played like that on this stage, not when you want to claim to be the best in Europe. It just seems...silly? But hey-ho, I was only puzzled by Denny's misuse of the word "deservedly".

Although, if you believe putting everyone into the box is an inspired tactical decision then what can I say?

Edit: Christ, the EDL are out quick tonight.

Missing penalties and hitting the post is a result of poor finishing from the teams in question and hardly makes them more deserving.

Just take off the purist goggles and accept that they deserved it.

[PaperMacheMario]

The deservedly beat Napoli, Benfica and Barca and Munich.

Ok. I'll play. Who deserved to beat them?

Barcelona and Bayern. If you're going to argue about it, I'd like to know your definition of "deservedly".

They defended better than Barca and Bayern attacked, and took their chances. I said it earlier, but why is a decent defensive display better than a decent attacking display?

For starters, it's a poor excuse for a side that have poured money in buying the best players in both attack and defence, not to mention a £50million striker.
But besides that, it wasn't a particularly good defensive display in either game - if Messi or Robben had scored penalties, this wouldn't be their year. You can then add the chances that came off posts or were disallowed. "Luck" is an intangible thing – and I'm taking nothing away from Chelsea's determination and belief which played a massive part – but you only need to look at the misses from Barca and Munich to see these games have seen some very fortunate turn of events.

Although, if you believe putting everyone into the box is an inspired tactical decision then what can I say?

I'm not saying Chelsea haven't been lucky, I'm just saying that I think they deserve it. You mention the penalty misses - Barca and Bayern both missed them (Barca's was from a dive, too) and Cech pulled off a great save to keep Robben's out. So for not converting chances, you don't deserve to win. Chelsea converted their chances and didn't bottle the penalties, so deserved to.

Without a doubt Chelsea got some luck in the Champions League this year. Just teams were so useless at making their dominance count against them, through some terrible shooting and heroic defending, amongst other things.

[Ginga]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

Bayern or Barca misses chances - not good enough
Chelsea refuse to come out of their own box - defensive masterclass.

Bonkers.

[Bigerich]

Here's yet another stunner from the Tippeliga:

[Cuttooth]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

If you can't win with all that going for you then you don't deserve to.

[Ginga]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

If you can't win with all that going for you then you don't deserve to.

[Preezy]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

It's not Chelsea's fault that Bayern couldn't score in a brothel, hell they even gave them a free penalty. If you don't take your chances, you don't deserve anything. Chelsea took theirs, thus they deserved the win. It's quite simple really, I am perplexed how a scholar of the game such as yourself can't see this.

[PaperMacheMario]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

Well yeah, if they've had that many shots and not scored then they're either strawberry floating useless or you've got an awesome 'keeper between the sticks. If you can score with your only chance then you deserve to win, seeing as the opposition deserved not to win for being so crap in front of goal. Or the defence and goalkeeper being so brilliant.

EDIT: Preezy basically beating me to it every time.

Stupid slow iPhone keyboard.

[Captain Kinopio]

strawberry floating hell, glad I stayed out of here tonight

Good game, was very pleased to see Chelsea win, especially for Lamps, DDA and RDM. Thought it was pretty shameful of Torres not to step up for a penalty, especially if Cahill was 6th! But then Munich pussied out so much they made Neuer step up

3 different English sides winning the CL in 8 years, 5th (?) English side to win it overall, more than any other country (?). Class

[7256930752]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

Chelsea had the most shots on goal this campaign with 489, did they 'deserve' to win the league?

[Pancake]

The deservedly beat Napoli, Benfica and Barca and Munich.

Ok. I'll play. Who deserved to beat them?

Barcelona and Bayern. If you're going to argue about it, I'd like to know your definition of "deservedly".

They defended better than Barca and Bayern attacked, and took their chances. I said it earlier, but why is a decent defensive display better than a decent attacking display?

For starters, it's a poor excuse for a side that have poured money in buying the best players in both attack and defence, not to mention a £50million striker.
But besides that, it wasn't a particularly good defensive display in either game - if Messi or Robben had scored penalties, this wouldn't be their year. You can then add the chances that came off posts or were disallowed. "Luck" is an intangible thing – and I'm taking nothing away from Chelsea's determination and belief which played a massive part – but you only need to look at the misses from Barca and Munich to see these games have seen some very fortunate turn of events.

Barca and Munich went to create and were caught with sucker punches. I've got no appreciation for football played like that on this stage, not when you want to claim to be the best in Europe. It just seems...silly? But hey-ho, I was only puzzled by Denny's misuse of the word "deservedly".

Although, if you believe putting everyone into the box is an inspired tactical decision then what can I say?

Edit: Christ, the EDL are out quick tonight.

The aim of any sport is to win. As long as you achieve that goal, how you achieve it is irrelevant.

[jamcc]

The deservedly beat Napoli, Benfica and Barca and Munich.

Ok. I'll play. Who deserved to beat them?

Barcelona and Bayern. If you're going to argue about it, I'd like to know your definition of "deservedly".

You deserve to win games/ ties if you score more goals under the rules of the game.

So did Barca and Bayern deserve to win?

Edit -why are you bringing up the penalty misses? They missed.

Oh and Fabregas dived as well.

[Denster]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

So a boxer who throws ten times as many punches as at an opponent who dodges/blocks them all and then gets knocked out by one punch is the worthy winner, too i suppose?

I strawberry floating love this attitude. When things dont go to script and the beautiful teams don't win by scoring goals - they seem to think they should win on artistic merit. What a load of bollocks.

Purist nonsense.

[<]:^D]

But if the other teams don't take all their chances (as Barca and Munich failed to do, repeatedly), how does that make them more deserving of the win?

It doesn't make sense.

So, if one side batters another for 90 minutes - 24 shots on goal, 72% possession, save after save from the opposition keeper, one of their players has more passes than you entire team combined, completely dominating and controlling the action and the other team nick a goal on the counter, you believe that team "deserved" to win more than the opposition?

That just seems skewed or that you're at the wind-up.

Bayern or Barca misses chances - not good enough
Chelsea refuse to come out of their own box - defensive masterclass.

Bonkers.

I never get how people can miss the point.

Bayern knew the way Chelsea were going to play, and they still lost. If the game is entirely decided by the two teams and their respective strategies (no referee errors/nonsense) then the team that wins deserves their victory.

EDIT: I wonder if Ginga has been persuaded