UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FINAL ... Bayern Munich v Chelsea ... *** Spoilers ***

Nooo, you are right, they offered nothing going forward.

Chelsea scored because Bayern scored an own goal right?

Yes, Chelsea played a defensive tactic, I get that. But you know what. Look who won?
 
And Lampard could have score 50 x 30 yards screamer in the first 5 minutes.

Your point is? Lol

What are you talking about?

Bayern created a number of gilt edged chances and missed a penalty. Chelsea put ten men behind the ball for the entirity of the game and scored a last minute equaliser from a corner. What that has to do with Lampard hypothetically scoring a long ranger I do not know. I'm sorry Raymond but Chelsea did not win because of superior tactics, they won because Bayern were completely and utterly hopeless in front of goal.
 
You sound really bitter, and I m certain you won't care if you team won it whatever way either.

As for lack of ambition. What competition that Chelsea spent soooo much money trying to win again?

Local Sunday league??? Errrrmmm no, last time i checked it was the European Champion's League.

If that is not ambition. What is?

I'm not really sure what you're talking about re; the ambition.

I'm certainly not bitter, I'd love to see Sheffield Wednesday playing in a European competition.

I'd rather play good football though and lose to a better footballing side then play ugly and win, obviously I'd love to win, but I would want to win playing well. You're 'certain' haha, don't attempt to speak on my behalf :)

Chelsea showed very little attacking ambition in the last few champions league games.

You're certainly right that Chelsea, or rather their owner spent a lot of money to elevate the club in to the 'sky four' and then to win a major European cup. It's been like an 8/9 year love affair for the owner and fans almost. It's the happy ending.

Didn't even know you were a football fan Raymondo! :)
 
What are you talking about?

Bayern created a number of gilt edged chances and missed a penalty. Chelsea put ten men behind the ball for the entirity of the game and scored a last minute equaliser from a corner. What that has to do with Lampard hypothetically scoring a long ranger I do not know. I'm sorry Raymond but Chelsea did not win because of superior tactics, they won because Bayern were completely and utterly hopeless in front of goal.

My point is all thses What Ifs are ultimately pointless, pointless and pointless.

What is priceless? Score when it matters.

Look who scored more?
 
I find it odd that plenty of people are moaning about Chelsea's tactics in the last few CL matches yet say that'd be a travesty if RDM doesn't get the job after winning it, not just in here but pundits, news sites & the like.
 
My point is all thses What Ifs are ultimately pointless, pointless and pointless.

What is priceless? Score when it matters.

Look who scored more?

:confused:

It went to penalties, nobody scored more until the shootout. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the fact that you've initially said that Chelsea's tactics were spot on, they weren't. They won the Champions League, it wasn't because of a superior tactic though. Far from it.
 
I find it odd that plenty of people are moaning about Chelsea's tactics in the last few CL matches yet say that'd be a travesty if RDM doesn't get the job after winning it, not just in here but pundits, news sites & the like.

because he won the Champions League with a (relatively) weak weak team...
 
I find it odd that plenty of people are moaning about Chelsea's tactics in the last few CL matches yet say that'd be a travesty if RDM doesn't get the job after winning it, not just in here but pundits, news sites & the like.

Unaware I'd said anything about Di Mattt getting the job.

If you would have been on here three years earlier than when you joined, you'd have noticed my Chelsea sig. :p

You should visit here more often :p

The more people in here the better and it helps to drown out the idiots.

This is hilarious.

Indeed.
 
because he won the Champions League with a (relatively) weak weak team...

In that case, surely it can be said that Chelsea couldn't afford to attempt to play 'exciting' attacking football (as you wished) due to the weakness of the team? You say it was boring, but they didn't really have a choice...
 
I think you need to put yourself in RDM's shoes when it comes to understand Chelsea's defensive tactics in the last few matches in the CL.

Against Barcelona. If you try to fight them head to head at their own game, you lose. That is a football certainty, no team can match their possession or passing and trying to play like them will get you played off the pitch.

So you play to your strength, you play in a way that you can win and hope to have a bit of luck. They did that in the semi's. The first leg went to plan and kept a clean sheet. The second leg the plan was to hold on to that lead and they HAD to especially after JT got himself sent off.

In the final they were without their first choice centre back, first choice right back and their first choice midfield. With two centre backs that had been out for 4 and 5 weeks respectively, they are not exactly tested for their partnership nor 100% match fit, with Robben being a danger on the right they wanted to eliminate his threat by double team him hence the extra left back as left wing.

Not to mention the final is basically a Home match or Bayern, and they had 2/3 of the supporters in the stadium capacity. Home advantages is certainly on their side.

No doubt it was a tactical decision to play defensively. To think you would go out all guns blazing with the suspensions to the key players and the conditions of an away match in a final that these players will probably will never see again is somewhat laughable I think.

Chelsea played safe, and they won. Tactically justified. The end.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom