Poll: *Uefa Champions League Semi-final*- **Spoilers**

Who will qualify?

  • Man.U. & Barcelona

    Votes: 141 56.0%

  • Man.U. & Chelsea

    Votes: 71 28.2%

  • Arsenal & Barcelona

    Votes: 28 11.1%

  • Arsenal & Chelsea

    Votes: 12 4.8%
  • Total voters
    252
Visionary said:
Having two banks of four behind the ball and then counter attacking isn't negative? What would be negative then? Putting the ball out for throw ins when they got it?
Click to expand...

Because playing attacking football against Barcelona is going to get you far?

They may have had the possession but they had 1 shot on target.
 
Visionary said:
Having two banks of four behind the ball and then counter attacking isn't negative? What would be negative then? Putting the ball out for throw ins when they got it?
Click to expand...
The first leg was negative, tonight was measured, disciplined, but positive.
I think it'd be pretty negative to play 3 up front and invite them to go at our defence in numbers. Conceding goals is negative, k?
 
Visionary said:
Completely different argument, no-one would deny Chelsea's style wasn't negative.

Except Nokkon and Andy Gray.
Click to expand...

I don't get your point though. I would have LOVED to have seen Arsenal even TRY and compete with Barca.

They'd have been lucky to have kept the goals in single figures.
 
Gustov said:
I don't get your point though. I would have LOVED to have seen Arsenal even TRY and compete with Barca.

They'd have been lucky to have kept the goals in single figures.
Click to expand...

My point is that Chelsea's football was negative. :confused:

Most people don't seem to understand what this means.
 
Visionary said:
Having two banks of four behind the ball and then counter attacking isn't negative? What would be negative then? Putting the ball out for throw ins when they got it?
Click to expand...

Everton do this and it works well for them. If you were playing the best team in the world wouldn't you be trying to do the same? Their defence was brilliant tonight, and I don't blame them at all for it.
 
NokkonWud said:
Negative? Are you kidding me? Barcelona knocked the ball around and did nothing. Chelsea had the most clinical chances tonight (and the best chance a week ago) and had 2 clear scoring chances blocked by handballs in the box.

Your comments here actually make me question whether you watched the game at all, or whether you talk rubbish to elicit a response. You're probably one of these people who go on and on about Barcelona being this and that, or perhaps the same for Arsenal and their pass, pass, pass, do nothing style which Barcelona did over two legs. In both games Barcelona only had Iniesta working in the middle, Xavi, Eto'o and Messi were bystanders, flashing wasted balls and hollywood shots over the bar.

But hey-ho, Chelsea's 'negative style' of getting the ball forward by breaking, working the keeper and creating cances obviously paled compared to the totally 'positive style' of Barcelona failing to get shot after shot on goal. Again.

Or, perhaps, it's just possible that Barcelona really aren't all that and actually DO play in a weak league where it's easy to score.

As a side note, two great goals tonight.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the top English teams are the toughest to play against because of the physical superiority. Have you played football or any sport at a decent level ?

No matter how good you are, when you come up against players who are physically superior than yourself and defend in numbers like that, you can only do so much and will obviously not look as good whilst you are being pressured.


You do know why Chelsea had more shots on goal tonight ?
 
Gustov said:
Yes and I'm saying if Arsenal played they would have played 'positively' and got smashed

Really that hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

No, that's why I've never denied that.

Chelsea would've been beaten easier if they attacked, yeah, I agree.

But they played negative football, that's all I'm saying. Obviously some don't agree.
 
el_dazza said:
Everton do this and it works well for them. If you were playing the best team in the world wouldn't you be trying to do the same? Their defence was brilliant tonight, and I don't blame them at all for it.
Click to expand...

I don't blame them either!!!

That's not my point. Bloody hell.

Some people said Chelsea's style wasn't negative, well it was.
 
Visionary said:
No, that's why I've never denied that.

Chelsea would've been beaten easier if they attacked, yeah, I agree.

But they played negative football, that's all I'm saying. Obviously some don't agree.
Click to expand...

But what's your point? We play negative football and therefore....?

They had 1 shot on target, they aren't out there to cater to your needs of keeping you happy through an entertaining evening in front of the box.
 
oh my - what an ugly scene :o
I thought Balacks impression of Keown on Ruud was pretty decant though.
Am a bit dissapointed Alves is suspended. I guess it will be 11 vs 11 now :/
 
Gustov said:
But what's your point? We play negative football and therefore....?

They had 1 shot on target, they aren't out there to cater to your ideas of an entertaining football game.
Click to expand...

I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH PLAYING NEGATIVE FOOTBALL.

If I was Hiddink I would've done the same.

Read up, my first post was a reply to NokkonWud. He said Chelsea's style wasn't negative. It was.

Please read!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom