The game went to penalties, though. Chelsea didn't score more than Bayern during 120 minutes, so why does it mean that only Bayern didn't deserve to win? I'm just of the opinion that if you create more chances, take more shots and do more with the ball than your opponents, you're the one that deserves to win.
Most people accept this as fact - when Manchester City beat a Manchester United side that had no shots on goal, everyone said it was deserved. If United had managed to get off a shot and scored whilst everything else about that match remained the same, would they have deserved a point? I'm just struggling with the concept that from all the factors that decide whether a ball hits a post or hits the net, some people are claiming it's entirely down to the individual.
The thinking seems to punish those taking chances, which I believe is wrong. I can't be the only one that thought Chelsea's name was on the trophy when Messi hit the bar? I know it's a daft statement but there has been some seemingly miraculous moments throughout this campaign. I'm not denying there's blood, sweat and tears attributed to the success, there has to be, but when when Napoli conspire to throw away a two-goal lead, when Barca don't beat 10-men at home (with 46 shots!) while Messi misses a penalty, when Bayern take 34 shots and only score in the last seven minutes...before Chelsea net from their first corner...then Munich fail to score a penalty in extra-time and the deciding penalty in the shootout hits the post and rolls along the line, you must start to think that they've had a very fortunate series of outcomes in circumstances where they weren't always in control.
Originally, I just felt Denster was being obtuse. I haven't heard many people of the opinion that Chelsea deserved to win all of their games in the knock-out stages, so my reply was a baffled shake of the head. I also stumbled across that gif and thought it was funny. I didn't, however, expect such a prolonged, protracted argument over the merits of Chelsea's win because I don't really mind nor care. I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with football as a whole, people seem to be enjoying it less and less. Money's corrupted what little dignity it had left and I'd guess the real reason teams have taken to "parking the bus" is because know how vital it is to get results that guarantee a cash injection, so less risks are taken overall. I grew up with Madrid sides that sacked managers who won titles the "wrong way".
I think that's detrimental to the game because if teams do rightly copy those that are successful, what's to stop more clubs from adopting Craig Levein's awful 4-6-0 formation if means constantly frustrating sides considered superior? I just feel we're getting further and further away from the entertainment aspect of football, the simplicity of 11 men taking on another 11 guys to try and prove who's better. Instead, too many applaud those that try to injure or hurt the most creative players.
I just think there's more to football than simply winning. If there wasn't, there'd be no "wee" clubs at every level or guys paying teams to let them play. It's nice to win - and I'm taking nothing away from the fans - I just think after all this time, to win it without ever dominating or outplaying the opposition, must feel slightly hollow. I'm not sure what it really proves to anyone.
People are far too quick to pass judgement in this thread. Barely catch sight of a player or see his worst games and he's labelled "shite" and written off for good. I was laughed at, in much the same way I am now, when I said Darren Fletcher would become vital to Manchester United, when he was only 20. He had a lot of raw potential and was doing things you can't really teach but perhaps without the physicality or confidence he'd need. We've got time to pick our words before we post, so why would anyone want to be so narrow-minded, especially about things that are so subjective - just because I may not agree with someone doesn't mean I don't find their argument to be engaging.
