Yeah, I can’t be bothered shutting up til October so I’m declaring that there were five invisible goals. Hurrah!
Anyway, I dunno; Chelsea will have to come forward more in the second leg, and without an away goal that makes the prospect of Barcelona snatching one all the more dangerous. While they obviously did well to force a stalemate, I really think the team playing away second has a significant advantage when it’s 0-0. This goes double when to venture past the half-way line is to risk being cut to ribbons.
Bit annoyed by some of the media coverage, really. There’s one set of cretins going “oh, so is this the lauded Barcelona of which we heard so much? They’re shite.” Well, they’re idiots who can’t have watched the match; Barcelona put together some stunning moments of skill, slicking passes through a defence that was mostly as tight as a duck’s arse. No, they didn’t create a killer chance, but that’s top-level football for you; it’s pretty close, by and large, and at the semis stage of the most prestigious club tournament in the world, you’d better expect the margins to be fine. Idiots come out with things like “where was Messi?” Where was Messi? Being tracked by one of the better defences in the world game, backed up by an outstanding midfield. When your front three are coping with seven or more top level players in front of them at all times, they’re going to look a bit subdued.
On the other hand, those accusing Chelsea of dull negativity are just as daft. I’ve heard the match described as a complete bore; I thought it was fantastic, and was agog for most of the first half (I only waned in concentration because I had a pork belly to prepare (mmm)). We’ve had the balls-out insanity of the Liverpool/Chelsea tie; this is a different beast, but every bit as absorbing in its own way. I want to see Barcelona score against a decent defence, because that’s the test of a great attack. It’s hard to see Chelsea surviving 120 minutes of the same, and I’d be surprised to see them try.
Sorry about that rant, I just ended up last night wondering whether the majority of pundits had watched the same match I did.
Pork belly was incredible, by the way. Honey mustard glaze for the win.
Great result for Chelsea but I can’t see them stopping Barcelona scoring in the next one. Likewise no way are Arsenal going to stop United scoring.
United - Barca final. I think an in-form United would be too much for an in-form Barcelona so it all depends which United shows up for the final. And I think they’re finally starting to show signs of emerging from their recent bad patch.
So - sticks neck out - United become the first team ever to retain the trophy.
Ah, reheated mac’n’cheese can still be glorious. Although yes, I agree that honey mustard probably isn’t the way to go.
Yeah, I gave up watching today’s match because it depressed me about the prospect of Arsenal upsetting United at the end of the season. Not that I really entertain any hope of Liverpool still winning the league, but it’d be nice to dream. Arsenal have certainly come back into things of late, but today (what I saw of it) made them look second class.
Oh, and I disagree, mutantmoose - I don’t see this United side dominating Barca. I’d say it’s evens that an English side will win the title (just because we’ve got three bites at the cherry to their one), but that still allows that Barca are favourites against any given English team.
A Barca/United final should be a fascinating affair, not least because it’s hard to see United playing a final in the same way Chelsea played last night, but to my mind Barcelona showed enough last night to prove that they’re not just hype, and that they’re favourites against pretty much anyone. I’ll be fascinated to see what they do in a more open game (not to mention see how their defence holds up under pressure).
Huh? Real Madrid, Bayern, Ajax, even Nottingham bloody Forest. This tournament has been running since the 1950s, you know. The format may have changed over the years, I’ll grant you. It’s still the European Cup in my mind.
Oh god, yes, good point. I can’t stand this “history started with the latest commercialisation” outlook. No offence to you, mutantmoose - it’s utterly pervasive thanks to the broadcasters buying in wholeheartedly. It’s like the top tier of English football didn’t exist before the 90s, for example. Only recently have Sky started acknowledging that domestic football existed before 1992, and it pisses me off.
Add me to the camp that considers the Champions League superior (or at least more difficult to win) then the old European Cup. Ditto to the Premiership over the old league one.
How so? The overall quality’s gone up, sure, but that’s true around the world, of any sport. Jesse Owens won the 100m in a time of 10.30; that wouldn’t get him to the final these days. Does that reduce the achievement? Of course it doesn’t.
Best in England for a given year, and best in Europe for a given year. These aren’t really mutable concepts; they’re relative, sure, but I really don’t see how a new label and a pile of cash makes them any more difficult to attain. After all, someone’s got to be top of the pile.
And the so-called Champions League is obviously easier to get into than the old European Cup Under the old format, neither Liverpool in 2005 or Man U in 1999 would even have been in the tournament, yet they won the CL.
But that doesn’t make it any less difficult of a competition. Look at the English league this year, there are 3 teams that are virtually neck and neck. Indeed, any top league around Europe is fairly comeptitive. Taking the 2nd and third place teams doesn’t reduce the level of the competition given that it’s played the following year when teams may have improved and you’re taking the best of the best leagues which increases competition overall.
Look at it this way, were the 1989 Arsenal team really that much better than Liverpool that year? Absent that goal, not really, no. Having both of those teams in the tournament furhter increases the competitiveness of said tournament.
Further, you need to win more games to win the CL over the old European Cup.
Maybe, although arguably it just increases the quantity of the competition, not the quality. Wildcards are few and far between, Porto being the only real recent example. The best teams still get through.
Quantity isn’t quality, though. Someone’s still got to win it, and it’s still most likely to be the best team in Europe, whoever that may be; and they still win it by playing a bit better than the second-best team. You could make it a hundred matches long and it wouldn’t make it a better tournament, or more prestigious, or even increase the quality of football you have to play to win it (quite the opposite, I’d imagine). Inclusiveness hasn’t helped the poor old UEFA Cup gain any traction, has it? In fact you see teams essentially chucking their matches because they’re not worth the hassle.
Universal standards improve, of that there’s no doubt, albeit (in a sport as popular as football) largely through increased professionalism and sports science understanding. But I really don’t see the meaning in saying that a title now is worth more than one in the 60s. Sporting achievements are, by very definition, relative to who you play. Certainly the establishment of the Premier League didn’t just flick a switch that made the same teams magically better. They improved, sure, through increased money, but again; they’re still just playing each other, and the achievements are all relative.
The top division is less competitive now than at any point in history, as far as I can see. Certainly post-war. How can it be otherwise if only four teams can realistically compete for the title, given the massive asymmetry of resources available to the 20 clubs in the premiership?
Whether the champions league is more competitive than the old European cup, hard to say. Playing more games makes it less competitive, not more, because the league format that increases the games played significantly mitigates the risk that was present in the old knockout format. This heavily favours the stronger teams, as is fitting and right in the UEFA plutocracy. OTOH, you had some relatively mediocre outfits winning the European cup in times past due to the greater luck of the draw.
That’s a fair point but I think that goes to the fact that the CL is taken more seriously by the bigger clubs. The fact is, you’ll almost never have an Aberdee, Nottingham Forest or Red Star win the thing again.
It does go to squad depth and size though. Notthingham Forest won it with a squad at 14. Given the current level of quality that just will never, ever happen again. More games means more strain and more demands on a squad. A lot more demands. Meaning only a larger, fitter team will win it.
Also. playing against teams from your own league is in many ways tougher as they know your style and the rivalry can be that more intense.
As for comparing eras, I just think the CL is a “bigger deal” nowadays. Of course that’s just my opinion.
Yeah, but this is just a “more resources” argument, really. Yes, it takes more resources to win, but everyone has more resources. Like I said, sporting achievement is all relative. I strongly suspect that even the middling top-tier teams of today would ride roughshod over the Brazil of the 70s, simply because they’re fitter and faster. Does that mean the Brazil of the 70s weren’t an incredible side? Of course not. Does it mean today’s middling sides are as impressive as 70s Brazil? Again, no.
Does it take a bigger squad to win these days? No doubt. Does this make the feat more impressive? Not really.
The European Cup has always (okay, for a very long time) been the prestige event. The CL has added some more commercial glitz, and a welter of utterly pointless games, but the end result is still that the team that wins is recognised as the best in Europe, and this achievement can only be defined relative to everyone else. No, the teams of yesteryear wouldn’t stand a chance today, but then they didn’t have the innumerable luxuries and riches enjoyed by today’s teams.
Wrong thread, but sod it; did anyone watch the clasico tonight? It was utterly ridiculous. Barcelona really are (offensively) on another planet. Defensively they’re fairly crap, but what does that matter when you can stick 6 goals past your main rivals without even taking all your cast-iron chances, and when one of your main strikers (Eto’o) is having an off night? Xavi and Iniesta made the Real midfield look like bollards over, and over, and over again. They picked out passes like they were seeing the match for the second time. It was utterly, utterly brilliant.
They now lead la Liga with 85 points and a goal difference of seventy-two. Their average result is to win 3-1. That’s bonkers.
Against all prior evidence, I think the second leg against Chelsea ought to be a cracker. The only thing I fear is Chelsea nicking a shit goal early doors and then shutting up shop again. An early Barcelona goal, though, and it’ll be carnage. Fingers crossed…
I think it’s more a comment on the rest of Spanish football than it is on Barça per se. After all, Chelsea managed to make that same team look entirely incapable of scoring just a few days earlier.
Meanwhile, Man U. continue their march towards domestic glory.
Sucks to be one of us.
)
