Jump to content

UEFA Champions League Discussion thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread What is your problem you seem to be constantly throwing your weight around looking for arguments. Its boring. How has ANYTHING Jack said been arrogant?

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread +

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

So, the last game of Van der Sar will be the CL final.. he can be the oldest man to play in a CL final beating Maldini that holds the record..

The first final of CL for both teams were against the same team, Benfica. The Mancs played Benfica in 1968 while the Spaniards in 1961.

The first time both sides won a CL cup was at Wembley.. Man Utd in 1968 and Barcelona in 1992, against Sampdoria. Due to this, either Manchester or Barcelona will equal Real and Milan as the only teams that won two CL in the same city. Milan won two in Athens while Real won two in Glasgow and in Paris.

This is the third European final between them.. each side won once. Barcelona in the CL final in 2009 defeated them by 2-0.. while the Mancs beat them by 2-1 in the final of Cup of the Cups at Rotherdam.. at that time, the keeper of Barcelona was Carlos Busquets.. father of Sergio Busquets actual Barça mid. Also, this will be the most repeated European final. Untill now, with two times, these are the most repeated European finals: Real Madrid-Stade Reims, Milan-Benfica, Milan-Ajax, Ajax-Juventus, Milan-Liverpool, Juventus-Borussia Dortmund and Barcelona-Sampdoria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Mourinho plays anti football.. :/ won two CL and was knocked out three times in semi's.. :/ surprised how anti football results so well.. also I fail to understand what is anti football..

and Didi' date=' I guess that Real at his home can decide if they cut or not the grass and if they irrigate or not.. UEFA recommends to irrigate.. but can't oblige. Don't forget that last year Barcelona against Inter irrigated the grass in the end of the game.. :rolleyes:[/quote']

It is quite puzzling how you can be so surprised of how anti-football results well, if you already fail to understand what is anti-football.

Anti-football is when you try to prevent the game from happening, I mean trying to prevent the actual playing of the ball on the field. It actually is very successful strategy, many trophies have been won with it. It has had quite few high points. To name two: The World Cup 1990, in which almost all teams tried their best to avoid any playing happening on the field; The Greece winning EC 2004. Both times resulted in changing the rules to avoid the victory of anti-football happening again. Mourinho, however, doesn't seem to get rules changed because his tactics. We'll see if next season there are new directives for the length of the grass and irrigation of the pitch for CL matches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

It is quite puzzling how you can be so surprised of how anti-football results well' date=' if you already fail to understand what is anti-football.

Anti-football is when you try to prevent the game from happening, I mean trying to prevent the actual playing of the ball on the field. It actually is very successful strategy, many trophies have been won with it. It has had quite few high points. To name two: The World Cup 1990, in which almost all teams tried their best to avoid any playing happening on the field; The Greece winning EC 2004. Both times resulted in changing the rules to avoid the victory of anti-football happening again. Mourinho, however, doesn't seem to get rules changed because his tactics. We'll see if next season there are new directives for the length of the grass and irrigation of the pitch for CL matches.[/quote']

Am I wrong to assume that Barcelona plays every game anti-football then? As a football game is between two teams and as Barcelona have always the ball and are always preventing the other team of playing football? At least Real gives to other teams a chance to play. :rolleyes:

I am also surprised, that if Real Madrid is an ''anti-football'' team as you say, have less 8 goals scored than Barcelona in the Spanish league and more 10 goals suffered..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Am I wrong to assume that Barcelona plays every game anti-football then? As a football game is between two teams and as Barcelona have always the ball and are always preventing the other team of playing football? At least Real gives to other teams a chance to play. :rolleyes:

I am also surprised' date=' that if Real Madrid is an ''anti-football'' team as you say, have less 8 goals scored than Barcelona in the Spanish league and more 10 goals suffered..[/quote']

Obviously you are wrong to assume that. You see, the point is not to let the opponent play, but try to play instead of preventing the playing from happening. You play football: that's football. You try to make it so that no one gets to really play it: it's anti-football. If one team is competitively so much better that they can just keep on playing their own game and the other one never gets to really play, then so it is, and as long as their first concern is to make play and not to break it, the football wins. Barcelona makes the play happen. Their victory is the victory of football.

I only said that Mourinho made Real play anti-football against Barcelona (although it is a matter of fact that he often plays same tactics against significantly weaker teams than his own, I recall him playing these similar tactics with Chelsea against teams like West Ham), but you shouldn't be surprised by the fact that actually anti-football can score goals. And concede them too (actually, it is very vulnerable strategy that can end in cracking up completely). There are rules made to avoid anti-football all the time. It's like computer programming. Coaches like Mourinho try to crack the system and when they do, the system is corrected in order to protect the game. Because if the anti-football keeps winning, then the game becomes way too uninteresting for anybody to watch, and football will lose its audience.

Goals don't make it. If coaches make their teams stay in defence whole game and only score on rare long balls and free kicks, no matter how many goals there would be, it would become boring, because the goals would be the only thing to see in the game. The game could end 6-5 and bore everybody to death if there were no actual in-play action (except of course those who simply enjoy to see highlights and just drink beer when the game is played).

Spain won Germany in World Cup semis with a lonely goal from a corner kick, and not amazingly genius one either. Yet that match was better to watch than either of the two Barca-Real clashes in CL this year (that were almost sickening for the most of the time), because both teams, Spain and Germany, actually tried to make play. One team was significantly better and could have won it by larger margin (and both teams got their fair chances to score too, actually Germany could have got a fair penalty + a red card to Spain on the first half) but it just so happened that there was no success in scoring and both teams also defended well - and in the end, ironically, in the clash of two teams playing good creative football, the only goal was scored with the most mundane corner kick trick that there is. It was particularly funny, because just until then Spain tried all kinds of tricks the goal being the first corner that they didn't give short, which perhaps caused this one to go through - the Germans might have waited for another corner given short. Few good goals would have of course made it more amusing, but the lack of great goals didn't make that game bad. It still was 90 minutes of fine football. Strong pressing and good passing game is good football. Trying to step on opponents feet in each and every battle is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Obviously you are wrong to assume that. You see' date=' the point is not to let the opponent play, but try to play instead of preventing the playing from happening. You play football: that's football. You try to make it so that no one gets to really play it: it's anti-football. If one team is competitively so much better that they can just keep on playing their own game and the other one never gets to really play, then so it is, and as long as their first concern is to make play and not to break it, the football wins. Barcelona makes the play happen. Their victory is the victory of football.

I only said that Mourinho made Real play anti-football against Barcelona (although it is a matter of fact that he often plays same tactics against significantly weaker teams than his own, I recall him playing these similar tactics with Chelsea against teams like West Ham), but you shouldn't be surprised by the fact that actually anti-football can score goals. And concede them too (actually, it is very vulnerable strategy that can end in cracking up completely). There are rules made to avoid anti-football all the time. It's like computer programming. Coaches like Mourinho try to crack the system and when they do, the system is corrected in order to protect the game. Because if the anti-football keeps winning, then the game becomes way too uninteresting for anybody to watch, and football will lose its audience.

Goals don't make it. If coaches make their teams stay in defence whole game and only score on rare long balls and free kicks, no matter how many goals there would be, it would become boring, because the goals would be the only thing to see in the game. The game could end 6-5 and bore everybody to death if there were no actual in-play action (except of course those who simply enjoy to see highlights and just drink beer when the game is played).

Spain won Germany in World Cup semis with a lonely goal from a corner kick, and not amazingly genius one either. Yet that match was better to watch than either of the two Barca-Real clashes in CL this year (that were almost sickening for the most of the time), because both teams, Spain and Germany, actually tried to make play. One team was significantly better and could have won it by larger margin (and both teams got their fair chances to score too, actually Germany could have got a fair penalty + a red card to Spain on the first half) but it just so happened that there was no success in scoring and both teams also defended well - and in the end, ironically, in the clash of two teams playing good creative football, the only goal was scored with the most mundane corner kick trick that there is. It was particularly funny, because just until then Spain tried all kinds of tricks the goal being the first corner that they didn't give short, which perhaps caused this one to go through - the Germans might have waited for another corner given short. Few good goals would have of course made it more amusing, but the lack of great goals didn't make that game bad. It still was 90 minutes of fine football. Strong pressing and good passing game is good football. Trying to step on opponents feet in each and every battle is not.[/quote']

To be honest, I not read all your post. I though you have noticed that I have been ironic in the exchange of responses between us, but apparently you didn't.

To be even more honest, I don't like the Spain and Barcelona style of play. They have a lot of attacking football time, but they are very cautious in the possession. And the number of occasions they have for the possession time isn't so high as Porto and Arsenal for example.. and against these teams you have a more entertaining match as they let the others team play..

The difference, is if you not have the ball you couldn't score. That's why they lose less times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13411117.stm

Barcelona midfielder Sergio Busquets can play in the Champions League final against Manchester United after being cleared of racial abuse.

Uefa has dismissed claims by Barca's Spanish rivals Real Madrid that Busquets racially insulted full-back Marcelo during their semi-final tie.

A statement on Barca's website read: "Uefa has rejected the complaint filed by Real Madrid."

Busquets is now free to line up against United at Wembley on Saturday 28 May.

European football's governing body said via a statement on its website that it had "decided to dismiss the complaint lodged by Real due to a lack of strong and convincing evidence".

Lack of strong and convincing evidence?!

What's the point of UEFA going on about the need to get rid of racism in football, and then when there's proof of a player being racist they do nothing? Disgraceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13411117.stm

Lack of strong and convincing evidence?!

What's the point of UEFA going on about the need to get rid of racism in football' date=' and then when there's proof of a player being racist they do nothing? Disgraceful.[/quote']

Absolutely disgraceful decision, the evidence couldn't be anymore convincing - Barcelona have UEFA in their back pocket and they know it :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Absolutely disgraceful decision' date=' the evidence couldn't be anymore convincing - Barcelona have UEFA in their back pocket and they know it :rolleyes:[/quote']

It was so expected.Mou was right anyways.Don' blame me for saying this but UEFA and Barca are utterly digraceful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Well, obviously Busquets is innocent until proved otherwise. That's the starting point of the procedure: it is not enough, that the alleged deed would be wrong, there needs to be strong and convincing evidence that it has taken place. Where's the evidence? That video, in which he quite apparently doesn't say "mono"? So, what else? If nothing, then there's no real ground for judging him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

It was so expected.Mou was right anyways.Don' blame me for saying this but UEFA and Barca are utterly digraceful.

So, basically you're saying, that if Busquets called Marcelo a "monkey" he shouldn't be blamed for that? Or what? Man, you're not really showing much backbone by asking not to blame you for saying something and then saying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

So' date=' basically you're saying, that if Busquets called Marcelo a "monkey" he shouldn't be blamed for that? Or what? Man, you're not really showing much backbone by asking not to blame you for saying something and then saying it.[/quote']

I have no idea what your earlier post is supposed to mean.

So you're actually supporting Busquets?

Typical,actually.

And lack of evidence,a person with half-a-brain could see the busquets was calling Marcelo a 'mono'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

Well' date=' obviously Busquets is innocent until proved otherwise. That's the starting point of the procedure: it is not enough, that the alleged deed would be wrong, there needs to be strong and convincing evidence that it has taken place. Where's the evidence? That video, in which he quite apparently doesn't say "mono"? So, what else? If nothing, then there's no real ground for judging him.[/quote']

Amazing lol.

This level of delusion is quite incredible.

OJBT7UGO5bw

Cheating since 1899 people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

I have no idea what your earlier post is supposed to mean.

So you're actually supporting Busquets?

Typical' date='actually.

And lack of evidence,a person with half-a-brain could see the busquets was calling Marcelo a 'mono'.[/quote']

I can easily believe that it takes a person with only half a brain to see that Busquets was saying "mono" - and from what you said, I actually get easily the picture that this is the real condition in your case.

This video gives maybe the best view to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIyvcE74EAQ

It doesn't even look like he said "mono". He says something too long the first time and not the same thing twice either. With a strong bias towards this particular solution, one could imagine that he said that, though pronouncing it bit bizarrely and in a different manner the second time than the first, which of course suggests that he didn't say it, but whatever. But it is only an interpretation then, a chance which very clearly is not proved by this video that completely lacks any evidence (audio evidence would be helpful) with which one could decide what Busquets actually said. It's like in dubbing cartoons: it looks ok, because you expect to see the articulation of the words that you think are said. But without mentally "correcting" Busquets words towards this one claimed solution, the way he moves his mouth doesn't alone give you those words. So, even if it approximately resembles the articulation of those words, that's no real evidence. That very simply is not. Would not go, without further evidence, through in any court in the proud western world.

UEFA was right to investigate this, because racism is a serious issue and thus any allegations of it with at least some basis (i.e. there's a claim of someone being victim of racist insults) warrant an investigation. But an allegation doesn't involve culpability. Here there was no evidence and thus no case. This was evident from the beginning, it would have been a judicial murder had he got the 5 match ban.

The case would have perhaps been stronger, had Marcelo spontaneously gone tell that to referee, or even said it in the press conference after the match. Even then, it would have been very questionable. But it is suspicious that he didn't do so. Marcelo doesn't react at all to whatever Busquets says to him. Nor does he mention anything about it after the game. But wait, two days after, when Mourinho has watched it from video, suddenly there's a case of racism. If he invented the whole event, it is a very cheap trick, because we're talking about big things here: to falsely accuse someone of something as serious as what racism is in football (seen that it is fought against by pretty much all football associations, and rightly so) must be intolerable. Actually, this should perhaps cause another ban to Mourinho. Too hard to prove, but there could be a case for it now that Busquets is cleared from accusations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Arsene Wenger Arsenal

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

In one week CL final guys! what do you think, who will get it? for sure very interesting game. barca against the team, which is for me the only one which can win them. great defence and good strikers also, like inter the year before just without the good CMs, sneijder and cambiasso.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

In one week CL final guys! what do you think' date=' who will get it? for sure very interesting game. barca against the team, which is for me the only one which can win them. great defence and good strikers also, like inter the year before just without the good CMs, sneijder and cambiasso.[/quote']

Surely the best final in years. This is really a clash of champions. But I just can't help but feel that this game might get a little ugly. One thing's for sure - it won't be boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Arsene Wenger Arsenal

Re: UEFA Champions League Discussion thread

I wrote something to do with how United might try to mitigate Barca's threat :). Enjoy!

nice article for the most interesting final in the last years! i don't say nothing and i don't predict something, the only thing i know is that i will be busy Saturday night :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...