Pundits going on about what a "good job" Chelsea did tonight

I am not a Chelsea fan but I thought Ashley Cole was outstanding.

True Barca could have and should have scored at least one, but give credit to how hard it is to defend for 90 minutes against such talent.

They handled it very well imo.

I still think Barca will squeeze through to the final but it wont be as easy as a lot of people expected.

ITS GREAT WHEN THE MINNOWS BEAT ANY OF THE BIG TEAMS IN EUROPE, WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING THAT FACT AND NOT TRYING TO PUT A LITTLE CLUB AND ITS FANS DOWN.

Everyone knows the score was 1-0 Foxx. What did you think you were adding with this?

Difficult to see a match with sooooooooo many lucky team !! , Chelsea players agree !!!

Not trying to put the club down punter. Was a dig at the so called pundits.

History remembers the winners, not possesion, shots on/off, corners etc.

We worked hard and beat the best team in the World. We were never going to play Barcelona at their own game but we showed a lot of bottle tonight and deserved it.

Why did you "deserve" it?

Barcelona are not even the best team in La Liga at the moment by the way

Ref. added 2 minutes extra time because Drogba is an excellent actor... and he scored... lucky again !

deserved it because they worked their bowlarks off. played sensible football, and scored a goal.

there's an old saying they have down battersea way.

"the winners can laugh and the losers can make a deposit"

I do apologies for using the collective noun when discussing my boy hood team.

How foolish.....

Well said Mex, a man talking sense instead of this Hans  ****.

Could put together a team of Olympic athletes on to a football field and the would "work the bowlarks" off even more. Would not mean they would deserve to win a football match imo.

Well your opinion is wrong me old son.

Chelsea deserved it because they took their chance and Barcelona couldnt take theirs.

There is no point in trying to belittle the Chelsea performance, many teams have tried and failed to get that result.

Bluefoxx how did Chelsea "deserve" it?

BTW what a sh it argument 'team of athletes'!

do it bigtime tonight hans?

Thats why he is seething!

Your argument is that because Chelsea worked hard they deserved to win isnt it?

chelsea deserved it because they defended better than barca.
barca conceded1.
chelsea conceded 0.

their finishing was better

chelsea scored 1.
barca scored 0.
surely a stats man like you hansulrich can see that.

They will get comprehensively bummed in the 2nd leg ... let Chelsea fans wave their plastic flags for a week.

Hans Chelsea scored and Barcelona couldnt.

Were Barcelona the better team over the game - yes.

Did they deserve to win? No, because they couldnt take their chances.

Barry is another man destroying this plonker Han's argument.

chelsea did what they had to do to have a chance of getting a result but it still required a huge dose of luck and barca to have lead in the their shooting boots for it to be successful

Well said Jam, well said old son.

Barrycool - I dont think you can say Chelsea defended better.

It was down to the finishing of the Barcelona players.

Jam so by your definition - in the history of football no team ever lost that deserved to win?

well i'll tell you what hans; you seem to have spotted something that most have missed. in betting terms that gives you what they call an edge. well i'll tell you what you do.

go to the markets where barca will be shorter than they were today [that's because they're at home] but armed with your new found knowledge you can bet a load of money on them.

and if you don't cop, you can then come on here and moan about how unlucky they were

Hans you've lost the argument. Give it up man.

Plenty have lost that have deserved to win, but Barcelona lost that match because of not taking their chances.

There is a difference between being the better team and deserving to win in my opinion.

You inser one coin a slot machine, and win the Jackpot... that was Chelsea today... anyway congratulations to Chelsea Fans !

What argument do you think I have lost exactly Foxx?

Barrycool - I dont think you can say Chelsea defended better.

It was down to the finishing of the Barcelona players.

i know that could be said.

but the  original poster was using stats to prove his point
so i was simply applying the same logic.

Hans, I´m with you.... nobody needs to understand football to see what happened.

Silly, very silly dear boy.

The statistics I used were to simply show the difference between the two matches, nothing to do with tonight's match in isolation.

I am not sure how you can possibly have been using those Stats to say that Chelsea defended well tonight when they clearly show Barca created a lot more clear cut chances this year than in 2009

seen/heard this loads of times.

you see a certainty.

you back it.

it gets beat.

all reason tells you that you should have won, but you didn't.

therefore you must have been unlucky.

12/5/09
Chelsea 1-1 Barcelona
9 Shots Off Target 13
4 Shots On Target 1
6 Corners 6
29% Posession 71%

18/4/12
Chelsea 1-0 Barcelona
3 Shots Off Target 13
1 Shots On Target 6
1 Corners 8
28% Possession 72%

MAN DID HIS NUTS BACKING BARCELONA!!
Chelsea beat the best team in the world and he still says they were rubbish.  No pleasing some people.  Great night, Drogba FGS at 13.5
Shame I wasn't on here to lay off my scorecast £5 @ 75 = £350 win, Drogba to score 2-1 result
Still took Drogs, Lamps, Terry and Cahill FGS and Chelsea win at 4/1.
Proud of my boys, very proud.  Score prediction at Nou Camp 1-1.  Dodgy penalty to Barcelona won't be enough this year.

PS CHELSEA FANS WILL BE GOING ON ABOUT WHAT A GOOD JOB CHELSEA DID LONGER THAN THESE PUNDITS

If it was all about who plays the better football then there would be no point in playing the tournament, just give the trophy to Barca every year, but, as it's not, many teams have tried and failed to park the bus against Barca , so credit should be given to Chelsea they did something by hook or by crook thats extremely tough to do and shut out Barca, on that basis alone they deserved the win , failing that Barca's profligacy in front of the net also means that Chelsea deserved it for being clinical.

Thought Chelsea did a good job tonight (a couple of anonymous players notwithstanding) and have given themselves a sniff in the camp noo.
Think it will be a lot closer over there than others are saying too.

Chelsea will most likely get knocked out at the Nou Camp. If they don't, fair play.

As a neutral i thought that Chelsea earned their luck and deserved the win.Thought that Barca were a bit too predictable in their play.Can see Chelsea scoring in Spain and getting to the final now.

A team has much more possession than their opponents, but fail to score and yet some people say that they were the better team.

A team has much more possession than their opponents yet fail to score, then concede a goal and lose, and are considered unlucky losers.Nearly every time this happens you'll find people talking absolute rubbish,saying " we were the better team" , "we could,or should have scored half a dozen goals"  etc, etc. They really don't understand how silly they sound. They use all sorts of analogies to justify their argument as if a football match should be judged on points like a boxing match. If they want to use this sort of analogy then they shouldn't forget that boxing matches can also be won by knockout...It's goals that count! Well done Chelsea.

Sharapour Chelsea,s Drogba played like a defensive mid-fielder anyone with any knowledge of the game understands that you if shrink the playing area until it is almost impossible for the opposition to function and you get lucky you might just sneak it, even so the scoreline should have read 4/5-1 Barca,the problem Chelsea will have if heaven forbid they reach the final is that they will actually have to open up and play the game as it is meant to be played,home game 11 behind the ball way to go.

I was on Barca, but despite them being the superior side in every department they were still beaten, therefore the side that beat then deserves credit for doing so. Sport is all about winning, it doesn't matter how you do it... that said I'll be very surprised if Barca don't knock 3 or 4 past them next week in the Camp Nou.

Chelsea had a game plan and it worked perfectly.  They knew Barca would create chances and they rode their luck a bit with the missed chances, but I thought they were reasonably comfortable for most of the second half.  Barca weren't unlucky, they missed the chances.

The problem for Chelsea will come if Barca score first in the Nou Camp.  It's all very well putting 10 behind the ball and lumping it to The Drog to win draw a foul when you've got a lead to defend, but it's tough if they need to get a goal.

Credit to them last night though, they did what was needed and gave themselves a decent chance.

PS - I expect every Chelsea fan on here who ripped into Ashley Young at the weekend to make an official apology to the BFF after The Drog's antics last night

I don't see the problem here. Of course the result could have been different but it wasn't, the game plan worked very well and they take a clean sheet and a goal advantage to the Camp Nou which I'm sure was the aim before the first whistle.

I doubt they can keep Barca at bay for another 90 mins, especially on the expanses of the CN, but they're in with a shout at half time and that's surely what it's all about?

If Chelsea's game plan was to limit Barcelona to only 5 gilt edge opportunities and create one decent opening on the counter attack then the game plan worked well.

If this is the best Chelsea can plan for at home then back to my OP the chasm is extremely alarming.

My point is that pundits were heaping praise on Chelsea for this performance. If it had not got the result they would have been slating them. They did not defend well - as stated Barca still had 5 great chances without playing anywhere near their best. Chelsea achieved this by having 11 men behind the ball in their final third of the pitch for most of the game. Just sheer weight of numbers rather than good defending.

The only stat that matters is the 1-0.

I don't think they can play the same game in Barcelona and shut them out personally.

hans

so you dont think Cole,terry and cahill defended well last night?

I agree to a point with your OP.  I was thinking the same watching the ITV analysis on the highlights show praising Chelsea's defending when the tie would look very different if just one of Barca's chances had gone in.

But none did, and you can't argue with the result.  Chelsea did defend well.  They were hard to breakdown, blocked 3 or 4 of Messi's shots and cleared off the line when they needed to.

However, if the match stats are similar next week, it would probably end 3-0.

Cole had a good game yes, Terry and Cahill put in some good blocks but were patchy in other aspects. They were protected by all the men in front of them, as I stated sheer weight of numbers.

As you say, the only thing that counts is the 1-0 and
now Barca will scared to death of conceding a goal
which would mean them scoring 3 times. It should be
interesting.

well its all about opinions,i thought the three of them were outstanding last night.Anyway still dont think its enough but it gives us hope

Like I said Terry and Cahill did do some good things however at home when the whole team is sitting back to concede 5 gilt edged opportunities, most of which came from running straight at the heart of the defence I don't think can be considered an "outstanding" display.

whats the BFF Berto?

Last night's post match punditry was poor, even by ITV standards, but as Chelsea won (against the odds) it's hardly a surprise they focused on the +ive's rather than the -ive's. Had the game unfolded in much the same manner, but with Barca having put away 2 or 3 of their good chances the focus of the so called 'experts' would have been very different.  It's horses for courses, much as the game itself was, so I don't understand or accept the arguement that just coz Chelsea had 10 men behind the ball for 80% of the match this somehow dilutes their achievment.  Bottom line is, if you play open, expansive football against Barca you are gonna get a shoeing 8 times out of 10, if you play like Chelsea did you reduce the odds of getting a shoeing significantly... not rocket science is it?

OP obviously has a point - but football doesn't always turn out the way you expect.  Fabregas finishing was terrible - he's gone downhill since he moved back home. 

Last year, Arsenal were lucky to get a 2-1 win at home to Barca, and then totally outplayed away.  And yet, without the RVP sending off nonsense, they were close to getting through.

1-0 is a better result than 2-1, and I think Chelsea are value at 3.2 to qualify.  Their old guys know this is probably their last chance to win the  CL - if they score then they will go through.....

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:29AM, GAMBLINGJOCKEY wrote:

whats the BFF Berto?

Betfair Football Forum

Barca have for years when losing possession faked injury or tactically fouled the opponents, the do it better than any other side. They may be incredible to watch but they are also the masters of the dark arts of the game. Chelsea did what they had to do against a superior team and at the end of the day, what matters in football is the result

Of course they got the result which is what matters on the night and the pundits will then claim it vindicated the approach.

I did not say that this was necessarily the wrong way for Chelsea to go about the game. I just said that it was not executed particularly well.

Chelsea will need to step up a couple of levels from last night next week to make it through.

Tbf to Andy Townsend that's pretty much what he was saying in commentary Hans

a good team effort; could not fault any of them; beating the great Barcelona 1-0 takes some doing.

Sour grapes.

The truth is somewhere between the two. Chelsea rode their luck considerably. However, that was always going to be the case with the gulf between the teams so massive. Chelsea did defend very well, but however well you defend against a team like Barcelona they will still create chances. Cole played very well but he got lucky early on when he left Sanchez trying to play offside. Cahill played very well but should have conceded a penalty when making a clear foul on Iniesta early on. Overall tho great credit to Chelsea's defence. They were not perfect but they were very good.

Personally, I think they'll get hammered in the Nou Camp but they've got something to hang on to and the longer the game goes on at 0-0 the more nervous Barca will get from conceding at set pieces. Clearly not conceding an early goal is key to Chelsea's chances. The one bet I'd like on the 2nd leg is that Drogba will spend a minimum of 5 minutes rolling around on the ground. Hopefully the referee will be strong enough to ignore him and then may the best team win.

Chelsea will need to step up a couple of levels from last night next week to make it through.

I think even my missus knows that.

What happens next week does not detract from the fact that last night's performance was a superb effort. Accept it Herr Strudel.

And they also got lucky, they could have easily still been beat 1-3 or more. I dont think they will have the same luck in the 2nd leg. They executed the result as well as they could. Playing that game, you are always going to risk giving chances up to Barca. FWIW I think Milan had a better game plan against them at home than Chelsea. They pressed them high up the pitch but that is probably seen as a much more risky.

Reading have had 13 shots for and 34 against in their last 2 games and won them both and both Newcastle and Man Utd have been doing it all season.

I dont remember Messi having a gilt edged chance and he'd scored 17 in 10 games going in.  They did very well against him and defended well.  Sure they rode their luck, but personally I thought the two centre backs emerged with a lot of credit and no hint of a penalty or a red card which is very important against Barca.  They were robbed by diabolical refereeing 3 years ago so they deserve their bit of luck

I think you also have to factor in that Barca were chasing the game and in those circumstances they are likely to have more shots and pressure than if they had been leading

Great atmosphere helped spur Chelsea on I think.  You should have seen the excitement every time Barcelona missed an opportunity.  It was as though we had scored every time they missed

Chelsea will need to step up a couple of levels from last night next week to make it through.

I think even my missus knows that.

What happens next week does not detract from the fact that last night's performance was a superb effort. Accept it Herr Strudel.

Perhaps your missus should be a pundit because from the ones I listened to they seemed to suggest that if Chelsea could play at the same level again next week they had a great chance to get through.

I would still say it could not be classified as a "superb" effort, Chelsea played decently well and Barca were very average.

If you are saying Chelsea were "superb" last night and conceded 5 gilt edged opportunities not just chances but opportunities that would have been taken 75% of the time - then how many would they have conceded if they only played "well" 10? "average" 20?

1-0 is a decent result to take away from home, especially for a good counter-attacking side like Chelsea. Barcelona will have to be very careful not to concede away goals when they go all out attack at Camp Nou.

Barcelona had the majority of the ball, but Chelsea looked very dangerous on the break and could have scored a couple more. I don't think Barcelona created many clear cut chances to score, they huffed and puffed but never really broke Chelsea down. Do you really believe the second leg will be any different? Of course Barcelona are favourites to go through - but Chelsea's defence is very stubborn - I wouldn't write off Chelsea if I were you.

I didn't think Barca created loads of gilt edged chances.  They had quite a few good chances and were unlucky not to score is more like it.  On a normal day they'd only have converted 1 or 2 of them imo.  None of their good chances fell to Messi.  That probably wasnt luck but by design

Highlander - credit where it's due for your pre-match prediction, but Barca had 4/5 gilt edge chances.  Chelsea hardly mounted an attack in the second half (and only a handful in the first).

I still think its a bit odd that Chelsea were so odds against.  If they weren't leading 1-0 I am sure they would have attacked more in the second half.  The most important thing for Chelsea and in the tie is away goals.  So they set out to keep a clean sheet.  Barcelona hit the woodwork twice so yes we had a bit of luck, but what were you saying about the last two CL ties between these teams?
Justice served.

I would challenge your assertion that Barcelona would take those chances 75% of the time. The one thing I notice about Barcelona is they need a lot of chances before they score, I often see them creating 7 or 8 chances before they finally knock one in. If Chelsea kept them down to a few decent chances in 90 minutes then they did a phenomenal job. And remember this is the CL semi-final so the standard of opposition is higher - the standard of defender is MUCH higher than Barcelona are used to.

look at the derogatory comments from fabregas in his after match interview.
Was this the same fabregas who was part of the arsenal team who went to the nou camp and became the first team in champions league history never to register a single shot on target during  a game.

Chelsea will struggle to keep so narrow in defence at the camp nou, there in lies the problem for them in the second leg. it's going to have to take a different approach imo.

Barca are certainly suffering with the form/injury of their 'wider' forwards at the moment e.g. no Villa, Pedro coming back from injury and out for form, Sanchez and Cesc not in great form).  Too reliant on Messi at the moment.  He would surely have put one or two of those away last night but the big chances fell to Fabregas (twice), Sanchez and Busquets.

Chelsea will score at the nou camp - my prediction.

This is Barcelona at Camp Nou - I am not under any illusions what might happen. Barca could finish the game off within 20 minutes - I make them hot favourites to go through. Having said that if Chelsea survive for 20 minutes without conceding, they have a terrific chance. It's going to be a long night for Chelsea if they sit in and defend like they did in the second-half. They will have to be more like how they were in the first-half, mounting regular counter-attacks - looking dangerous on the break. They scared Barcelona in that first-half, you could see it. They'll need more of that at Camp Nou.

The spirits have spoken and John Terry will lift the European Cup in Munich.  No point in Barca turning up.  RM and BM merely playing for the runners up medals

OK maybe 75% was on the high side given the players involved but still more than 50%.

3 of the chances though just required a simple side foot into the net which any player in the Barca team should be capable of.

The other 2 Fabregas was clean through on an advancing keeper and Sanchez just needed to be calmer to lob the keeper when he hit the bar.

I'm not disagreeing that Barcelona should have scored, but not 5 goals, they might have scored a couple but that would have made Chelsea start attacking - and would have changed the pattern of the game. And Cech only had one save of note - it wasn't like there was shots raining down on him from all angles.

I know Chelsea have it all to do in the 2nd leg, but they are stubborn and they will make life very difficult for Barca. If Chelsea can keep it at 0-0 for 20-25 minutes, they have a serious chance.

Pass the spliff Highlander, you're hogging it and its making you deluded

ROy stop talking sh!te - name one thing I stated that was unreasonable - I bet you cant.

See my thread on drivel you deluded man

One thing worth noting is that Barcelona are nowhere near as dangerous up front without Villa. They really miss him. They have no teeth up front and they rely on Messi far too much. This is not the same Barcelona as last year - I think they might have peaked actually - they might well be on the way down.

ROy, I think you mean your thread OF drivel

well it would be hard to top the Champions League final performance. A certain fall-off from that level would not be a disaster

Yep they're on the wrong side of the curve now. If Pep is smart he will leave after this season and remain a hero with the Catalans, before the sh!t hits the fan. I think the days of winning CL trophies will soon be a distant memory for Barcelona - who are also in huge amounts of debt btw. I wonder if they'll have to sell some players? I'm pretty sure they are not allowed to buy any at the moment.

high_lander
19 Apr 12 12:22
Joined:
11 Nov 10
| Topic/replies: 2,674 | Blogger: high_lander's blog
I'm not disagreeing that Barcelona should have scored, but not 5 goals, they might have scored a couple but that would have made Chelsea start attacking - and would have changed the pattern of the game. And Cech only had one save of note - it wasn't like there was shots raining down on him from all angles.

I know Chelsea have it all to do in the 2nd leg, but they are stubborn and they will make life very difficult for Barca. If Chelsea can keep it at 0-0 for 20-25 minutes, they have a serious chance.




Not saying they should have had 5 but expectation would be 3 out of those 5 for sure.

Last time people were crying for weeks that Chelsea should have had 4 penalties when all claims were less than 50-50

talk about tailor the facts to suit your argument...less than 50/50????/

the norwegian ref gave the times an interview earlier in the week when he said that anybody who knows anything about the laws of the game could see that he didn't apply them correctly, and he expressed remorse about his performance that night.

but you, it srrms know better.

less than 50/50 I think all the pundits giving their opinions agreed that the ref was insane for not giving any.
We can argue about this all we want, but I am happy to keep shtum for a week and let Chelsea do the talking.  No 0-5 scoreline at the Bridge, no 5-0 scoreline at the Nou Camp.

I seem to know better? That is is a bit rich from you who constantly accused me of doing my bank last night on zero foundation. Then when I showed the thread to you that proved I didn't have a cent on the match you didn't even acknowledge your error.

I think all the pundits giving their opinions agreed that the ref was insane for not giving any.


This backs up my original post that pundits spout a lot of guff. Because Chelsea had a few half shouts for penalties the ref should have given them one for peristence?

If he did that the same pundits would then cane him for not being consistent.

hans

i'm sorry, but you just come across as a loser , so you can't really blame me for thinking that's what you are.

as i said the ref acknowledges he was wrong.

but you aint having that are you?

not much to debate really is there?

i'm sorry, but you just come across as a loser , so you can't really blame me for thinking that's what you are.


No problem Mexicano, you got it completely wrong. Your judgement is very flawed and good of you to admit it.


the norwegian ref gave the times an interview earlier in the week when he said that anybody who knows anything about the laws of the game could see that he didn't apply them correctly, and he expressed remorse about his performance that night.

The only thing I heard him reported as saying last week that he still gets death threats from Chelsea fans. If he did suddenly decide to admit after all this time that he may of got some decisions wrong in that match then it should help stop those death threats one would imagine.

Although I presume first and foremost he was referring to his decision to send off Abidal.

so after the flawed analysis [50/50]. we get iffy presumptions?

read the article mate. then you wont have to dream up presumptions to try and make yourself at home [in your own mind] with a flawed analysis.

i'm sure you'll agree that these sort of things have more credibility when they come straight from the horses mouth, rather than some chancer picking them out of thin air in order to try and legitimise some awful analysis.