Becuase they played total anti-football and got massively lucky, the same way that Barca got lucky in 2009 against chelsea with all the penalties not given.
In conclusion, the better team by a MILE didn't go though.
UEFA Champions League/Europa League 24/25/26 April *** Spoilers ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Becuase they played total anti-football and got massively lucky, the same way that Barca got lucky in 2009 against chelsea with all the penalties not given.
In conclusion, the better team by a MILE didn't go though.
Me too, it was really heroic stuff imo.
Some of the best battles in history have been when a weaker army have prevailed above all odds against a bigger army...
Ramires goal was crucial because Chelsea were in meltdown at that point, it gave them something to defend second half after they'd re-organised. Lampard deserves credit as well for two world class passes for both Drogba & Ramires goals.
So you're saying Barcelona deserved it more?
If anything they played horribly last night. You're making out that Barcelona only deserve to win the CL because they've won it before. What a ridiculous arguement.
The amount of Chelsea hate in this thread from Utd/City fans (or whatever you follow) is ludicrous.
Over two legs, they won. If that's not deserving of the final place, then I don't know what is.
Also to imply Chelsea werent working hard last night is just trolling.
Comments like this make me laugh. Maybe we should stop playing football all together and just look at the teamsheets of each team and assign a winner to each competition based off of that? .....no need for teams to score more goals than the other or anything
What, have Giggs, Walcott, Young, Nani, Lennon, Bale and Valencia been on here again?
Bale was, he was trying to get his ball back I think.
Needs to get his form back first I would suggest
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
a horrible performance just like leg one where they again dominated totally its just that barca missed like 5 gilt edged chances to score.
it was a victory but a slightly hollow one as everyone at chelsea must know. yes they made iit to the final but the gulf between the quality in the sides was fair to see.
Why is it a hollow victory? Is it a hollow victory when a lower league side knocks Manchester United out of the FA Cup through sheer grit and determination?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Because when you get out played by a mile in 2 matches but happen to snatch a win, whilst the opposition wastes a hatful of chances, then you can hardly call it great victory.
The players will know in their own minds just how far away from barcas capability they really are.
Dont get me wrong, the end result was a great one for chelsea. But its not as though they went to barca, set their stall out and played the chelsea way, unless the chelsea way is a flat back 10.
They did this at home too.
Usually you go out to win a game by being better than your opponents, the only sense that Chelsea were better is that they took 3 of their 4 chances, where barca missed a redicolous number of easy chances, hitting the bar, post on numerous occasions.
Chelsea got lucky, but did what they needed to do.
Im not saying their effort and workrate etc should not be commended, but it was not a pretty performance, and they proved nothing about their own style of play or the ability of their squad.
The players will know in their own minds just how far away from barcas capability they really are.
Dont get me wrong, the end result was a great one for chelsea. But its not as though they went to barca, set their stall out and played the chelsea way, unless the chelsea way is a flat back 10.
They did this at home too.
Usually you go out to win a game by being better than your opponents, the only sense that Chelsea were better is that they took 3 of their 4 chances, where barca missed a redicolous number of easy chances, hitting the bar, post on numerous occasions.
Chelsea got lucky, but did what they needed to do.
Im not saying their effort and workrate etc should not be commended, but it was not a pretty performance, and they proved nothing about their own style of play or the ability of their squad.
Why is it a hollow victory? Is it a hollow victory when a lower league side knocks Manchester United out of the FA Cup through sheer grit and determination?
with four (I think?) 1st choice players banned from the final - its likely to be kinda hollow, not to mention any injuries before then (and if Cahill recovers)
Still cant believe it, makes me physically sick thinking about last night
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Why is it a hollow victory? Is it a hollow victory when a lower league side knocks Manchester United out of the FA Cup through sheer grit and determination?
Ah, theres me thinking that Chelsea are aspiring to be the best in europe?
Im not sure how comparing a LL team with no budget beating a youthful UTD side quite compares with two of the richest clubs in the world duking it out in the champions league...
What a joke. I didn't see any gulf between the quality of the two last night.
If you judge quality by possesion, and how you use it, then Chelsea were far superior. Barcelona had more kicks, but they didn't do anything with them.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Im pretty sure they scored 2 goals and got a penalty, which they hit the bar with?
How do you conclude, that they did NOTHING with it, given these stats?
Okay, they didn't do enough. Chelsea did.