End of the first half and how the hell is it still 0-0.
If you’re watching on US TV you know it’s “poor finishing”, since they’ve said it about 30 times.
Finally Byeren score. That could be it.
What an amazing last 5 minutes. A great equalizer from Drogba. And Bayern have taken Muller off. It is going to be a very interesting extra time.
And Cech saves Robbens penalty.
Ugh. C’mon Bayern.
And how the he’ll did they miss an open goal?
A penalty shootout. Chelsea of course lost in the rain in Moscow in 2008. Bayern won in 2001 against Valencia.
god i hate soccer.
The better footballers lost. The better team won. Sorry Tottenham. Chelsea are champion of Eurooe.
Spurs for sale! Come get your Spurs for sale!
Lampard better be the first to lift the cup, not the twat Terry.
Wanted Bayern to win, but congrats to Chelsea. First London club to win a European Cup/Champions League.
I don’t really follow club soccer, but watched the end of this game, and the announcers went on and on about how huge this was for Chelsea, implying that they kept almost losing along the way, etc. Can someone summarize, or point me towards an article summarizing, the story as a whole? Are they a perpetual bad luck team like the Cubs or something?
thanks
Chelsea had moderate success throughout the years (1 league title, plus ~6 various Cup wins), but in 2003, they were bought by a Russian billionaire who wanted it all right away. They won the English league 2 times quickly ('05 and '06), and a 3rd time in 2010. But the billionaire has spent hundreds of millions of pounds to get a European championship, which carries the most prestige. Chelsea lost in the semifinals in '04 (Monaco), '05 and '07 (Liverpool), lost the final to Manchester United in '08 (on penalties), and lost the 2009 semifinal to Barcelona. Chelsea is on its 8th manager since 2003, and this season’s team has easily been the worst for the club since probably 2002. They were dominated by Barcelona in this year’s semifinal, and outplayed today by Bayern, yet still did what they had to do to lift the trophy.
Looking back, I think Bayern on a relative level dominated more than Barca did last year yet Barca got three goals and Bayern 1. When you get 30 plus shots on goal and score just once, you deserve to lose. Especially when you consider that Chelsea had about 3 shots and their goal came of Chelsea’s first (and I think only) corner of the match. In the 88th minute.
This is nonsense, it just means you were unlucky. The last two rounds Chelsea just proved to be very good in standing in the way…and then needed some luck of two actual footballing teams missing chances/having chances saved (Robben-Cech-post anyone?). You don’t deserve to win just because you didn’t do anything ‘positive’ all match long. And for the record, Chelsea has been second best for the entire knock out phase of this years Champions League (Napoli and Benfica were better as well).
All congrats to Chelsea fans, you don’t always have to be the best team to win and Drogba’s has header was awesome… but this really is a Greece 2004.
“second best” apart from the wins that they continually manufactured, “didn’t do anything positive” apart from the goals they scored. I hear this a lot and don’t quite understand it. On the day you don’t have to be the best team, but you rarely win any tournament through luck. and leagues are never won by luck.
Barcelona and Bayern play a certain way (yet neither were good enough, often enough to win their respective leagues…Oh, nor were Napoli or Benfica as it happens) and it is up to the opposition to devise tactics and strategy to counteract that. Chelsea did, very effectively and on many occasions. They played to their strengths and successfully
mitigated their shortcomings. That is as valid a means of winning as Barcelona’s (admittedly more aesthetically pleasing) dynamic attacking play.
Number of shots, even those on target, don’t tell the whole story. If you concede territory for strategic reasons and squeeze and harry the opposition deep in your territory then shots will result, but they are more likely to be constricted, hurried and unsuccessful (if you carry out your defensive duties well)
There is some luck involved but that only gets you so far. Greece won Euro 2004 by superior execution of their plan, so did Italy in WC 2006.
Don’t mistake attractive for effective. Ask Arsenal, ask Barcelona, ask Tottenham.
I hate the fact that Abramovich et al see fit to buy their success so nakedly, but I can’t deny that they are deserved winners.
You say that like you are making a point, yet guess who else didn’t win their respective league?
(For those who don’t know that answer, not only did Chelsea not win the English league this year, they only finished sixth)
I was indeed making a point, that Barcelona’s and Bayern’s method of play is not effective all the time and is open to being counteracted. As Chelsea did.
I’m well aware that Chelsea had a bad domestic season. Over the course of a full season they were not the best team in England. However, over the course of a European Championship campaign they proved themselves very effective at dealing with the challenges that Barcelona, Bayern (and others) put before them.
If you like. Except that Chelsea didn’t really counteract any style of play, they just got lucky.
Mourinhos Inter Milan, now there was a team that counteracted Barcelona. They actively nullified them with great defensive performances and intelligent play, preventing Barca from getting into key positions. Chelsea on the other hand, simply put their backs to the wall and got lucky.
Don’t forget, against both Barcelona and Bayern Chelsea did not and could not prevent them creating chances. Barca particularly had multiple chances to put the ball in the net, that they didn’t take them had nothing to do with anything Chelsea did, it was all Barca simply fluffing their chances.
Fair play to Chelsea, but please don’t describe their performances as evidence of any great tactical victory, or as part of an effective style of play.
So it was fairies who who won it for Chelsea?