Champions League Spoilers 21st/22nd Feb

kitten_caboodle · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:05

Naan_H said:
Well Sissoko has damaged his retina, a very bad injury he will be out for a long time i would think. i just hope he can recover.

how awful

wassap · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:16

Gilly said:
You were saying they had no skill though, which is blatant crap

Semantics.Playing with.

They may have skillfull players, BUT they dont play the kind of football which befits a great club, they dont play the kind of football which i want to watch, which i enjoy watching, its hard enough having to watch crap at anfield every other week, i dont really want to see slightly better crap at the supposedly best club in the land.

BoomAM · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:21

Burned_Alive said:
I think its pretty strong to say we won the Champions League entirely due to luck and smacks of jealously or just bitterness

I get that one a lot as well.

To say "winning the champions league is nothing if you dont finish in the top 2 in your domestic league" is a bit pathetic in my opinion, its an achievement regardless of however you perform elsewhere, maybe even better if you werent playing well enough to finish higher in your league.

Yes, its an achievement, thats mared by inability domestically last season. imo anyway.
2nd place can be put down to 'concentrating on CL', but 5th cant be.
But thats just my opinion.

This is the point Chelsea fans seem to stumble over, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool EARNED their millions, Chelsea just got it handed on a plate.

I do agree with you on this point.
But money doesnt mean success. They spent a lot when tinkerman was there and finished second. And despite the millions more they spent with Josè, they still havnt cracked the CL yet.
As has been said, look at Real & Inter (£440m on players from the current owner).

wohoo said:
I would go as far to say chelsea actually played better football when the likes of Zola were there (well duh!)

Zolas is probably Chelseas best ever signing.

Burned_Alive · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:33

BoomAM said:
I get that one a lot as well.

Yes, its an achievement, thats mared by inability domestically last season. imo anyway.
2nd place can be put down to 'concentrating on CL', but 5th cant be.
But thats just my opinion.

I do agree with you on this point.
But money doesnt mean success. They spent a lot when tinkerman was there and finished second. And despite the millions more they spent with Josè, they still havnt cracked the CL yet.
As has been said, look at Real & Inter (£440m on players from the current owner).

Well, do you really believe luck was the major factor in us winning the champions league? If you do, theres really no point debating with you.

Theres really no excuse for our domestic performance last year, we just werent performing in the league, couldnt really be helped at the time. But that shouldnt in any way take away from the achievement.

I agree that money doesnt always equal success, but in Chelseas case it has, everything they have achieved is down to romans money primarily, without it they'd be nowhere.

Royality · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:53

Gooner14 said:
Bloke on Arsenal world had £10 1-0 with Henry 1st scorer at 50-1. Nice.

Pleat is a ****. Sedairoros. Fool FACT, He also mentioned Mexes. Hmmmm. Tool

I heard that too... I was like WTF?!?! Mexes is at Madrid, I then spent the next 5 minutes looking for him. :mad:

BoomAM · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:55

Burned_Alive said:
Well, do you really believe luck was the major factor in us winning the champions league? If you do, theres really no point debating with you.

Yes i do.
End of discussion now eh?

Burned_Alive · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:57

BoomAM said:
Yes i do.
End of discussion now eh?

Yep, because imo thats ridiculous.

JohnnyG · 22 Feb 2006 at 15:57

Burned_Alive said:
There was a few follow up programs on both Sky and ITV/2 i believe, that looked back over the "magic" or something of the CL and they did an in depth analysis of it. I believe a few newspapers covered this too.

You're the only person I've ever heard say that, I've seen all the programs & heard all the talk etc. but have never once seen it proved anything other than inconclusive. Feel free to enlighten me though

Burned_Alive said:
without it they'd be nowhere.

We didn't finish outside the top 6 & won 4 major trophies in the 8 seasons prior to RA's arrival, so saying that we'd be nowhere without his cash is just speculation, who knows what would have happened had he not come

lemonkettaz · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:00

without RA chelsea wouldnt of even bought half the players they have done in the last 2 seasons.

therefore having a subs bench that isnt full of internationals... i.e. finding it difficult like most teams do when they are players down from their starting 11.

the last 2seasons would have been completely different

Burned_Alive · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:05

JohnnyG said:
You're the only person I've ever heard say that, I've seen all the programs & heard all the talk etc. but have never once seen it proved anything other than inconclusive. Feel free to enlighten me though

We didn't finish outside the top 6 & won 4 major trophies in the 8 seasons prior to RA's arrival, so saying that we'd be nowhere without his cash is just speculation, who knows what would have happened had he not come

Obviously im only going off memory so i cant recall the exact specifics of it all. But i was dubious about the goal too before i watched the program as im generally quite an objective fan (or i like to think so). They overlaid it all in some computer program and established that the ball had crossed the line. I distinctly remember feeling a lot better after the program seeing it had been proved beyond doubt.

"Nowhere" was just a figure of speech btw, i just meant that you wouldnt have been in for the title, more of an alsoran (much like liverpool for many years gone by) and that with the looming financial trouble you probably didnt stand to get any better and it looked at the time like you would have to sell your best players which certainly wouldnt favour you.

BaZ87 · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:10

Chelsea fans seem to forget that even if the Garcia goal wasn't given it would have been a penalty and a red card. Before you say that nobody know's what the ref would have given, he actually came out a week after the game and said he played the advantage and if it wasn't a goal he would have awarded the penalty and sent Cech off.

As for weather it was a goal or not? I have no idea; i have seen to animated reconstructions 1 showing it not to be a goal and 1 showing it to have crossed the line.

JohnnyG · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:12

Does that mean you would have scored the pen & won the game then? Or is it all hypothetical?

IceBus · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:13

JohnnyG said:
They haven't for gawds sake, it just so happens to lok bad at the moment & for the umpteenth time it plays fine.

IMO a pitch with standing water on it doesn't really adhere to the definition of 'playing fine'

BaZ87 · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:14

JohnnyG said:
Does that mean you would have scored the pen & won the game then? Or is it all hypothetical?

I never said that we would have then gone on to win the game, but as a Liverpool fan i would rather be 0-0 with a penalty and opposition down to 10men for 70mins that 1-0 up (particuarly against a team like chelsea)

BoomAM · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:22

Burned_Alive said:
Obviously im only going off memory so i cant recall the exact specifics of it all. But i was dubious about the goal too before i watched the program as im generally quite an objective fan (or i like to think so). They overlaid it all in some computer program and established that the ball had crossed the line. .

That was on SSN.
And it didnt cross the line, i remember the report quite vividly.

BaZ87 · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:24

BoomAM said:
That was on SSN.
And it didnt cross the line, i remember the report quite vividly.

There were 2 different versions shown, 1 with it crossing the line and 1 not. Can't remember where or when i saw them though

BoomAM · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:25

Im trying to work out if that was sarcasm.

freshy · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:33

Burned_Alive said:
Well, do you really believe luck was the major factor in us winning the champions league? If you do, theres really no point debating with you.

Theres really no excuse for our domestic performance last year, we just werent performing in the league, couldnt really be helped at the time. But that shouldnt in any way take away from the achievement.

I agree that money doesnt always equal success, but in Chelseas case it has, everything they have achieved is down to romans money primarily, without it they'd be nowhere.

luck is a major factor in anyone winning the champions league in my opinion. too put it down to sheer outstanding performance would be misguided to say the least. remember porto the year before - they had luck, teamwork and ability in pretty much that order - which is what you need in the big tournaments.

TrueBlue · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:44

this thread has just gone so OT, looks like all the ABUs have turned in to ABCs. Amazing how the majority hates those with success.

Team for tonight id go with:

GK- Cech
DR- Ferreira
DC- Carvalho
DC- Terry
DL- Del Horno
DMC- Makelele
MC- Joe Cole
MC- Lampard
AMR- Shaun Wright Phillips
AML- Robben
ST- Crespo

Blow that Gallas is injured and Essien is suspended.

BaZ87 · 22 Feb 2006 at 16:46

TrueBlue said:
GK- Cech
DR- Ferreira
DC- Carvalho
DC- Terry
DL- Del Horno
DMC- Makelele
MC- Joe Cole
MC- Lampard
AMR- Shaun Wright Phillips
AML- Robben
ST- Crespo

Not that i care but i would have thourght Duff and Drogba will play instead of SWP and Crespo