Champions League Spoilers 21st/22nd Feb

kitten_caboodle said:
I do believe Mr Ferguson wrote or contributed to a book entitled 'Are you watching Liverpool?'

Hmmm. Not boasting..let me think that one over..... :p

Sorry but BoomAM is right. Some of the Liverpool contingent on this forum are the worst fans I've ever seen for boasting and slagging off every side that isn't Liverpool.

I normally support every English team in European games, but after some of the comments directed at Everton from 'pool fans during the qualifiers I hope they get hammered in the next leg and that Liverpool fans finally stop all this "best team in Europe" crap. If they were the best team in Europe they'd be winning the Premiership year in, year out.
 
TrueBlue said:
it is a major travesty that such a poor team is European champions, it just goes to show literally anyone can win it given the right circumstances.

Well you blues couldnt beat a poor team, so how good is your team then? :p
 
TrueBlue said:
it is a major travesty that such a poor team is European champions, it just goes to show literally anyone can win it given the right circumstances.

Oh dont be pathetic. We hardly 'got lucky'. If thats a travesty what about Chelsea buying their way to the premiership title?
 
Last edited:
JohnnyG said:
The look of it means nothing, remember the state of Man. U's pitch earlier in the season? That looked a real mess but played fine, this pitch plays fine as well:)

The pitch looked awful in the Colchester game - it was cutting up all over the place and the ball was bobbling a fair bit.

As for it not being an advantage, of course it is - you're playing arguably the best passing side in the world, disrupting that flow is a huge advantage.

The truth of it is, Barcelona could probably pass the ball from their end of the pitch without it ever touching the ground if they had to.

I hate this because football is meant to be a test of which team is the best, not a test of which team can hack it into the net on a ploughed field. If Chelsea have kept their pitch deliberately this bad (and it's the worst I've seen a Premiership pitch in a long while - Arsenal did more when Highbury was like a sandpit) then they obviously don't think they can beat Barca in a fair match.

I have no problem with teams taking whatever advantages they can, using their physicality etc. but it grates just a little when Mourinho is constantly bleating on about being the best team in the world and then he has to resort to dirty tactics (Essien fouler par excellence) and playing on the Somme.
 
Oh dont be pathetic. We hardly 'got lucky'. If thats a travesty what about Chelsea buying their way to the premiership title?

You got lucky by getting a goal which shouldnt of stood, its didnt completely cross the line for ***** sake. How is it a travesty that Chelsea won the premiership?! we had a the skill, quality and consistency and were leaps and bounds the best team in the league.
 
TrueBlue said:
You got lucky by getting a goal which shouldnt of stood, its didnt completely cross the line for ***** sake. How is it a travesty that Chelsea won the premiership?! we had a the skill, quality and consistency and were leaps and bounds the best team in the league.

Its already been proved to have crossed the line, get over it.
You didnt earn the premiership title, you bought it, thats why its a travesty. Im sure the players deserved it, the club does not.
 
Last edited:
Both Man United and Arsenal purchased players that helped them win the league so I don't see why Chelsea doing the same is "buying the title". Yes, they have lots of money to buy all the players they want but that’s useless if they can’t work as a team and get results, which they do.

Pompey has had a bit of a spending spree and they’re still at the bottom of the PL. Yeah they haven’t spent as much but, it shows that buying players is pointless unless they work as a team and get on with each other.

Saying that Chelsea have only won the title by buying the best players is just silly to me. It's helped but it didn't guarantee it.
 
You didnt earn the premiership title, you bought it, thats why its a travesty. Im sure the players deserved it, the club does not.

Actually TV replay has shown it inconclusive.

As for buying the league, dont talk ****, Real Madrid & Inter are prime examples that money doesnt buy you silverware. We won the league through having and excellent manager and hardworking players with desire to succeed.
 
Hang on a minute, out of all the clubs in europe there's probably only Chelsea could match Barca for ability. I don't believe for a second that Jose would allow the deterioration of the pitch if there had been anything they could do about it.
 
Mr_L said:
Both Man United and Arsenal purchased players that helped them win the league so I don't see why Chelsea doing the same is "buying the title". Yes, they have lots of money to buy all the players they want but that’s useless if they can’t work as a team and get results, which they do.

Pompey has had a bit of a spending spree and they’re still at the bottom of the PL. Yeah they haven’t spent as much but, it shows that buying players is pointless unless they work as a team and get on with each other.

Saying that Chelsea have only won the title by buying the best players is just silly to me. It's helped but it didn't guarantee it.


When did they last win the title before abramovich came in and bought Mourinho and all those players?

TrueBlue said:
Actually TV replay has shown it inconclusive.

Its has been proven several times using computer imaging software.

TrueBlue said:
We won the league through having and excellent manager and hardworking players with desire to succeed.

Which you bought with Roman's money, how hard is that to grasp?
 
Last edited:
Burned_Alive said:
When did they last win the title before abramovich came in and bought Mourinho and all those players?
I don't know exactly not being a Chelsea fan but I know it was a long, long time ago. Maybe the 1950s. Even so that doesn't overide my point.

Edit: Seems it was 1955.
 
Mr_L said:
I don't know exactly not being a Chelsea fan but I know it was a long, long time ago. Maybe the 1950s. Even so that doesn't overide my point.

Edit: Seems it was 1955.

Well it does, the fact remains that if Chelsea had not been bought they would more than likely be looking at a relegation battle rather than a title challenge, if the club still remained at all. So the revival, primarily, is down to the cash injection, anything else is secondary.
 
Burned_Alive said:
Which you bought with Roman's money, how hard is that to grasp?

Who has been Chelsea's most consistant players and pretty much embody the club at the moment: Lampard and Terry

Did we buy Lampard or Terry with Romans money?
 
Back
Top Bottom