Spread firms, bookmakers clean up.

I've just come back from the Lurpack factory and can confirm that they are all smiles.

Chelsea players' legs bound to get tired; FOOTBALL.

CHELSEA have scored injurytime goals in four of their last five matches but the boot could be on the other foot when they entertain Barcelona in tonight's Champions League semi-final first leg, writes Dan Childs.

A first-choice Blues team defeated Tottenham 5-1 in Sunday's FA Cup semi-final but the game will have taken its toll on some of the older players.

Chelsea will try to play at a similarly high tempo, but as the game wears on they could be increasingly vulnerable.

Barca play the same way from the first minute to the last but it could be the second half when their slick football extracts maximum reward, making a buy of their goal minutes at 100 a tempting ploy.

Recommendation Buy Barcelona goal minutes at 100 Sporting Index



Hard to see Di Matteo passing toughest test.
Dan Childs

ALMOST three years have elapsed since Barcelona's Andres Iniesta broke Chelsea hearts with an injury-time goal at Stamford Bridge but the chances of a similarly dramatic conclusion to the second Champions League semi-final between the sides could be reduced by a comfortable Catalan victory in west London tonight.
Barca have gone from strength to strength since the 2009 semi-final - winning two Champions League trophies and three La Liga titles.
And Chelsea have regressed to such an extent that they are sixth in the Premier League and in danger of missing out on a place in next season's Champions League.

The Blues could render their battle for a top-four finish irrelevant by winning the Champions League but they have little more than a puncher's chance of defeating Barca over two legs.

That was not the case in April 2009 when Chelsea travelled to a last-four, first-leg clash at Camp Nou with genuine belief in their chances of reaching the final.

They were 11-8 to qualify, while Barca were the 8-13 favourites.

And expectations of a couple of titanic tussles were borne out by the results - a 0-0 draw in Barcelona and a 1-1 in London.

This time Barcelona are overwhelming 2-11 favourites to reach the final and - at odds of 3-4 to win tonight's match - they are only slightly longer than the 8-11 they were to record a first leg home win three years ago.

However the divergence of the teams fortunes has been so great that Barca are still decent value to win this evening. There was a time earlier this season when the Catalans were showing signs of vulnerability, particularly in away games. But they have moved through the gears in the last few months and will take to the field bidding for a 15th victory in 16 games.

Much of their success has been down to one man - Lionel Messi - but what a man he is.

He was acclaimed as arguably the best player of all-time after spearheading Barca's 2010-11 Champions League triumph but he has gone up another notch in recent months, scoring 26 goals in his last 14 matches.

Messi would be a handful for any defence but this time he will be taking on a shaky Chelsea rearguard which is finding it difficult to keep clean sheets.

The Blues have achieved just two shutouts in their last ten matches and have been weakened by the absence of David Luiz, who has played with much greater assurance and responsibility over the past few weeks.

Blues boss Roberto Di Matteo named his strongest team for Sunday's FA Cup semi-final clash with Tottenham and he will have felt vindicated by the impressive 5-1 result.

But while the Blues may be feeling mentally stronger than they were a few days ago, their physical state could be someway short of 100 per cent.

Di Matteo must decide whether to freshen up his side or persist with largely the same players but, whatever he does, it is no way to prepare for the club's toughest match of the season.

Recommendation Barcelona 2pts 3-4 BetVictor, Paddy Power

a fantastic result ....

were they running a risk on barca winning ?

Terminal Perversion, your point please ?

From the Post, ''The blues had been friendless
in the market and both fixed-odds and spread
firms hailed a 'fantastic' result.''.

Go figure....a heavily backed odds on shot gets gubbed.....is this the kind of reporting the Rancid Post has stooped to? Hardly news is it

If there's even money on both sides of the line (and it's a linesetter's job to make this happen), then the spreads firms make the same money whatever the result, whether the result is in the middle of the spread or whether it's miles off to one side or the other.

It's easy to think "they must make double if it's inside the lines because all punters lose" but it's easy to prove this wrong.

Let's say that the sell line is A and the buy line is B.

Let's say there is 1 pound bought and 1 pound sold.

Let x be the final result.

The bookmaker pays out x-A to the seller and pays out B-x to the buyer. Total payout is B-A, which is independent of the result (does not contain x).

If the line setters set their lines so loads of people were buying barca goals but no one was selling them, then they would make a big profit, but then they'd be incompetent for doing that as it would have left them heavily liable if barca had scored loads.

To be fair, it was a game which Barca could have won 5-0.  I think the price was about right.

Mr Angry, they didn't actually have five chances, bsides
what about Chelsea's goal ?It's realistic to think they should have won, but
maybe 2-1, 3-1.

ror, it works like that in theory, but not in
practice.

they didn't actually have five chance

Really?  Hitting the crossbar, the misckick from 8 yards, hitting the post int he 2nd half, then Cech save around the post, the last-second shot over the bar from 10 yards.  Any, none, or all of those could have been scored.

kens stating that on the number and quality of chances created you'd expect them to net 2 or 3 that majority of the time. A very fair statement. I suspect they'll net 4 at the Nou Camp and 4.0 is a price which appeals.

That adds up to four, and it would be unusual if
a side scored every time they had scoring chance,
wouldn't you think ?

Well it depends on how you see the game, I suppose, Ken.  Barca's style of play is not normally about creating quantity of chances, rather waiting patiently to create the quality chances.  I would suggest that each of those 5 I mentioned (from memory) were all excellent scoring chances, each of which should have been scored.

Was Barca's off price shorter than that suggested by the unfolding of play?  Personally I would say not.  And I guess that's where opinions go beyond the stats and more into "gut feel".

Did you have a punt on it Kenilworth?

You could argue that if Barca had scored any of their chances that Chelsea would have been more inclined to attack leading to Barca carving them up on the counter. If it's 2-0 at HT at Camp Nou then you can all but sit back and watch unquoted come in.

czech save around the post.

hardly a missed chance,the goalie made a very good save.
are you saying every time an attempt is saved by a goalie it  is a missed chance.

kens stating that on the number and quality of chances created you'd expect them to net 2 or 3 that majority of the time

Mr Angry, they didn't actually have five chances, bsides
what about Chelsea's goal ?It's realistic to think they should have won, but
maybe 2-1, 3-1.

Chelsea scored from their only chance and i would say Barca had 3 or 4 easier chances than the chelsea one - chelsea's goal was also on the break which quite likely wouldnt have happened if Barca were already 2 up

All hypothetical of course !

hardly a missed chance,the goalie made a very good save.
are you saying every time an attempt is saved by a goalie it  is a missed chance.

Disagree if you want.  That's the beauty of sports betting - the stats don't always tell the truth.

Personally I thought Chelsea would be much stronger than the market gave them credit for, but any one of those early chances taken and it would have been a different game.  Again, that's what makes sports betting so interesting.

it would have been a different game,but in what way.
athletico bilbao took the lead last night but went on to lose.
please expand on your 'would have been a different game theory'

all games are altered by events, but you only see the actual game and not the variations, because they dont exist

Chelsea would have had to assert themselves in an attacking manner alot more had they conceded first as taking a defecit to Cam Nou would obviously have been unthinkable, so the game would have been more open.

owl4life, I opposed Barca, but not directly. I'm not after timing
as I posted a thread a couple days before the match, suggesting
that the visitors were IMO a bit short at around 1.75,and giving
my reasons.

Surely this is obvious? 1-0 to the underdog, everyone likes backing the favourite and cheering goals.

That doesn't mean the underdog/unders is always a bet though, for the same reason bookings isn't always a sell because it's generally a buyers market.

emeraldg, I think it does, although it doesn't mean it will
always be a winning bet. IMO the blind seller would simply
lose less in the markets you mention.

Apr 20, 2012 -- 3:30PM, barrycool wrote:

czech save around the post.hardly a missed chance,the goalie made a very good save.are you saying every time an attempt is saved by a goalie it  is a missed chance.

Every time goalkeeper saves it is a missed scoring chance. If the keeper didn't save it was a goal. There is no goalkeeper who saves 100% of times.

So should we judge a match by how many attempts
on target rather than goals scored ?

stats are obviously misleading

stats are obviously misleading

You can say that again.

Perhaps we should award half a goal when the ball hits the woodwork.
Liverpool would like that, but that's another story..

Personally I believe situations like this mark the difference between "stats" and a working knowledge of those stats.  The stats never tell the whole story, only a narrow snapshot of history.  All of my betting occurs "beyond" the stats.

Mr A, did you show aprofit on the Chelsea v Barca ?

Yes, I was laying Barca because after the initial flurry from Barca I through they were looking bereft of attacking ideas.

Well done, but do u usually just bet in running ? I must say
90% of my football betting is in running nowadays. I like it.

I only bet on games I can see.  Sometimes that involves dozens of trades, sometimes a single bet.  But I like to watch to have the option to change my mind.

I agree although I don't have very many bets, and usually from 55 mins onwards.
The betting seems to go haywire at times with people aquaring up their positions.