*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Tbf I didn't think it was that risky at all. In the tie in question Chelsea were staggeringly unlucky and over the two legs fully deserved to beat Barcelona.

I'm not referring to the tie. I'm talking about the tactic. Negative tactics are quite risky when the object is, ultimately, to win. If the sole purpose is to shut down the midfield, rather than focus on any attacking thrust of your own, you're playing a dangerous game. For one, if you arrive at penalties, it's a bit of a lottery.

Negative football can so easily backfire is my point.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm not referring to the tie. I'm talking about the tactic. Negative tactics are quite risky when the object is, ultimately, to win. If the sole purpose is to shut down the midfield, rather than focus on any attacking thrust of your own, you're playing a dangerous game. For one, if you arrive at penalties, it's a bit of a lottery.

Negative football can so easily backfire is my point.

Against a team like Barcelona specifically though, I'd have thought non-negative football can backfire a lot more easily.

In any one off game or even ties over two legs, the winner will always be something of a lottery.

I'd have defined Chelsea's tactics as boring and 'anti-football', certainly, but they were not IMO riskier than any other tactics, and they were the best tactics available to them - were it not for a serious of curious decisions by the referee they would have won. I don't think we would be saying the same had they gone into the tie by trying to play Barcelona off the park.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Against a team like Barcelona specifically though, I'd have thought non-negative football can backfire a lot more easily.

In any one off game or even ties over two legs, the winner will always be something of a lottery.

I'd have defined Chelsea's tactics as boring and 'anti-football', certainly, but they were not IMO riskier than any other tactics, and they were the best tactics available to them - were it not for a serious of curious decisions by the referee they would have won. I don't think we would be saying the same had they gone into the tie by trying to play Barcelona off the park.

Which really shows why Barcelona is so good. What aussie was suggesting is that Barcelona is beatable (and it is) because you could just shut down the midfield. But he fails to note a couple of things. One is that it's a lot easier said than done, and only the very top clubs in the world can even hope to do so really. And two is that shutting down the midfield gives you the best chance of beating them, but it doesn't actually mean you will. Negative football is almost certainly the best tactic, but Barcelona is so good that it's not often a winning one.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Which really shows why Barcelona is so good. What aussie was suggesting is that Barcelona is beatable (and it is) because you could just shut down the midfield. But he fails to note a couple of things. One is that it's a lot easier said than done, and only the very top clubs in the world can even hope to do so really. And two is that shutting down the midfield gives you the best chance of beating them, but it doesn't actually mean you will. Negative football is almost certainly the best tactic, but Barcelona is so good that it's not often a winning one.

Yeah I agree with all of this.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, but Chelsea often played soul-sappingly boring football. If your aim is to stop the more creative team, and hope to snatch a goal at the other end, you may do well. But it's very risky.

Disagree. They stifled them to 1 shot on goal all game and created numerous chances. If you were to not look at possession stats you'd call that domination, really. I don't consider that particularly risky. It's not like they lumped it forward; they just let Barca have all the space in the centre of the park and none beyond it. Drogba didn't have his shooting boots on and the ref forgot his brain otherwise the scoreline could have read something pretty ridiculous.

I agree re your general point, but I think the top teams in the world could match them; even if I were to give Barca the edge. They're made to walk all over other teams though, that is why any tactic will likely spell doom.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree re your general point, but I think the top teams in the world could match them; even if I were to give Barca the edge. They're made to walk all over other teams though, that is why any tactic will likely spell doom.

Well then you understand what I meant by risky. That's not to say that there's any less risky tactic, as I stated above. It just shows how good Barca is.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes, but Chelsea often played soul-sappingly boring football. If your aim is to stop the more creative team, and hope to snatch a goal at the other end, you may do well. But it's very risky.

In all fairness to Chelsea, if they'd have had a competent referee for the 2nd leg of their semi they'd have won by two or three goals. I'm not fan of theirs, but under Hiddink they played the best football they'd done for some years.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In all fairness to Chelsea, if they'd have had a competent referee for the 2nd leg of their semi they'd have won by two or three goals. I'm not fan of theirs, but under Hiddink they played the best football they'd done for some years.

That's football though. I think my point about Barcelona still stands. However I admit that my "soul-sappingly boring" comment was very much baseless bias against Chelsea (scum). But I'm cool with it.

 

[chalky]

Portsmouth have fourth owner of season

Unbelievable really. Quite sad.

According to that article Portsmouth are still £60 million in debt, this despite selling:

Diarra £20 million
Crouch £10 million
Johnson £18 million
Defoe £16 million
Muntari £12 million
Distin £5 million
Krankjar £2.5 Million
Mendes £3 million
Kaboul £9.5 million
Begovic £3.25 million


I make that approx £100 million recieved there must have been some staggering miss management or corruption in previous years for them to be in this position.

 

[Furball]

In all fairness to Chelsea, if they'd have had a competent referee for the 2nd leg of their semi they'd have won by two or three goals. I'm not fan of theirs, but under Hiddink they played the best football they'd done for some years.

And if Barcelona had a competent ref in the 1st leg, Ballack would have been sent off and Barcelona would have had a penalty.

 

[aussie]

I'm joining the party late, but I thought I'd just check that aussie is aware of who Barcelona play in midfield.

The idea that ANY club side has the match of Barcelona in midfield is a staggeringly ignorant one.

Yes both Chelsea & Inter can match them in mid-field especially when you consider bench strenght.

When you talk about their regular first XI, although Barca with Xavi/Toure/Iniesta/Kieta (whichever trio starts) is better than everyone. Essein/Lamps/Ballack/Mikel/J Cole (whichever 4 starts) & Zanetti/Cambiasso/Muntari/Sneijder have the skill set really shut down Barca's creativity from mid-field & bully out Messi like what United did in 07/08. But of course its easier said than done.

Thats Barca's weakness, just like how a Australian batting line-up in cricket had a weaknesses & on turning pitches. Barca have a weakness againts physical teams who can shut them down along with quality strikers who can take advantage of goal-scoring oppurtunities when they arrive. Which ATM in europe is only 2 teams.

Which really shows why Barcelona is so good. What aussie was suggesting is that Barcelona is beatable (and it is) because you could just shut down the midfield. But he fails to note a couple of things. One is that it's a lot easier said than done, and only the very top clubs in the world can even hope to do so really. And two is that shutting down the midfield gives you the best chance of beating them, but it doesn't actually mean you will. Negative football is almost certainly the best tactic, but Barcelona is so good that it's not often a winning one.

Its negative football & the ability to be strong on the counter. Its not just shutting down the mid-field by man-marking Xavi & Iniesta & bullying Messi, the opposition also need to be excellent on the counter attack so when the get an oppurtunity they can score.

Barceloan could play a physical team like a Blackburn or in a hostile enviroment againts a Russian or Turkish team & get roughed up for 80 minutes & their passing rhythm could be messed up. But Blackburn/Russian or Turkish team dont have the quality up front, to capitalize if they do get a chance to finish. Then in the last 10 minutes Barca could score 2-3 goals & at the end the game looks like it was a walk in the park. With Inter & Chelsea things most likely would be different when you have blokes like Drogba/Anelka/Milito/Pandev/Sneijder in brilliant goal-scoring form ,who 8-9 times out of 10will score.

I never suggested any of this would be would be easy, as we saw in CL semi-final last year with Barca & Chelsea. Chelsea did all i was suggesting for 95% of the two leg-tie, but Iniesta produced a moment of brilliance at the end & Barca snuk through to the final somehow. But its a proven tactic that works based on past matches..

 

[cpr]

According to that article Portsmouth are still £60 million in debt, this despite selling:

Diarra £20 million
Crouch £10 million
Johnson £18 million
Defoe £16 million
Muntari £12 million
Distin £5 million
Krankjar £2.5 Million
Mendes £3 million
Kaboul £9.5 million
Begovic £3.25 million


I make that approx £100 million recieved there must have been some staggering miss management or corruption in previous years for them to be in this position.

Considering their former manager, chairman, and current chief exec all up in the dock for various degree's of fraud and tax evasion........

 

[BoyBrumby]

And if Barcelona had a competent ref in the 1st leg, Ballack would have been sent off and Barcelona would have had a penalty.

Even if one allows that, Chelsea should've had at least two in the second leg.

Water under the bridge tho.

 

[Craig]

If Wenger wants to buy Mario Balotelli he is more then welcome too. Maybe he will be the person to tell Balotelli to HTFU.

 

[Ausage]

Barceloan could play a physical team like a Blackburn or in a hostile enviroment againts a Russian or Turkish team & get roughed up for 80 minutes & their passing rhythm could be messed up. But Blackburn/Russian or Turkish team dont have the quality up front, to capitalize if they do get a chance to finish. Then in the last 10 minutes Barca could score 2-3 goals & at the end the game looks like it was a walk in the park. With Inter & Chelsea things most likely would be different when you have blokes like Drogba/Anelka/Milito/Pandev/Sneijder in brilliant goal-scoring form ,who 8-9 times out of 10will score.

All I heard was blah blah blah Blackburn > Barcelona.

 

[aussie]

Balotelli looks average indeed. All that height & strenght for nothing ATS at least, maybe he will improve.

 

[sledger]

Over time? Unlikely I heard.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Over time? Unlikely I heard.

 

[marc71178]

Owen Hargreaves left of the MANU CL list, still think he can make the WC, along with Woodgate and King obviously...

Don't forget Owen and Nannes!

 

[aussie]

Don't forget Owen and Nannes!

Yes fool i believe Owen should be the ENG WC squad. This is contentious issue amongst most ENG fans, you take a poll in ENG 2day i'm failry certain it would spilt 50/50 if you ask the question "Should Capello pick Owen in the WC squad". So dont try to paint it as i alone have this POV, the world of football views doesn't revovle around what i said in this football thread on CW.

I'd much rather argue for Owen to be picked, rather than your position on Warnock going as back-up left-back.

Yes fool i firmly believe Nanens should be in consideration for the AUS ODI & test set-up & not just the T-20 team. I know you off all people can question me on this since you know nothing about AUS cricket.

You want to debate this, lets go clown...