[Marco Dilivio]

Im still puzzled how people say chelsea "deserved" to win? what made them deserve it? defending for 120 minutes against a superior side that would have moped the floor with them if chelsea at least tried to play football

good on chelsea for winning but saying they deserved it is ridiculous

[River85]

(Original post by Marco Dilivio)
Enjoy the victory chelsea fans sorry if I offended anyone but Im just being honest for the sake of football

How noble of you.

Playing defensive is not "anti-football" and if you think that's the most defensive a team has ever played in a major final then you clearly haven't seen many (particularly those involving Italian teams).

(Original post by Marco Dilivio)
Im still puzzled how people say chelsea "deserved" to win? what made them deserve it? defending for 120 minutes against a superior side that would have moped the floor with them if chelsea at least tried to play football

good on chelsea for winning but saying they deserved it is ridiculous

How is defending not playing football? Football is a game where the objective is to score goals and stop the opposition from scoring. Defending is a vital part of "playing football".

So if Chelsea didn't deserve to win, can you make a case for Bayern? If so, how? A team who couldn't take the chances they were given, who had a penalty saved in extra time, and then failed to convert two of their penalities in a shoot out. How on earth did Bayern deserve to win?

[The Rusty Spork]

(Original post by silent ninja)
You can't say that anymore. Dis-counting the last season where Arsenal football hasn't been that pretty, Arsenal are Barcelona-lite. Barcelona have shown you can play pretty, quick paced possession football with short guys and win things (-- remember how the PL was always about a typical big centre forward, and now it's the nimble quick guys like Aguero and Tevez that take preference). They play one style of football which is quite similar to Arsenal but of a higher standard-- one style of football that has won them a hell of a lot of trophies and football quality that every team would die for. Pundits were always going on about how you can't win anything playing like Arsenal, then Barcelona comes along and you stop hearing that. Most pundits are clueless and fickle, just like a lot of football fans incidentally lol

Arsenal don't play anything like Barcelona at the moment. Arsenals game plan now isn't about the small passing it was 3/4 years ago, it is more direct and is based a certain amount around pace. Also, arsenal do not press without the ball in a manner even vaguely reminiscent of Barcelona.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[The Rusty Spork]

(Original post by Marco Dilivio)
From a neutral and honest point of view...Chelsea did not deserve to win it at all.
Played anti football from the first minute and had no intention of playing decent not even good but decent football at all.
Playing with your whole team in your box isnt what a European Champions does and no offence to Chelsea... they are probably the worst champions I've ever seen.

I understand playing to your strengths is one thing but playing 10 players behind the ball is a bit ridiculous the game would still be going on now if there wasnt penalties. You could get 10 big rubgy players and stick them in front of the keeper and i doubt many teams will manage to score tbh. Its not an art or talent to play ultra defensively its just sad

Chelsea's players drogba, lampard, terry, essien, malouda, cole.cech the older guys do deserve a champions league medal for their careers I guess so Im happy they got that but for who Chelsea were I think they should have given the world a better display because Bayern were all over them and the only way chelsea could have scored was a set piece and they did.

Enjoy the victory chelsea fans sorry if I offended anyone but Im just being honest for the sake of football

Chelsea didn't play 'anti-football' they played defensive football. Anti football would seemingly be leaning towards bending the rules/blatant cheating.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Marco Dilivio]

(Original post by Mess.)
Chelsea didn't play 'anti-football' they played defensive football. Anti football would seemingly be leaning towards bending the rules/blatant cheating.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

not sure you know what "anti football" means
it means when you chose to defend throughout the whole game instead of attempting to actually win it or play proper football

[FrigidSymphony]

No, they didn't, but neither did Bayern playing like that. Especially Robben. Greedy bastard.

[The Rusty Spork]

(Original post by Marco Dilivio)
not sure you know what "anti football" means
it means when you chose to defend throughout the whole game instead of attempting to actually win it or play proper football

There is no definition of 'proper football'. Football is what it is, playing the game, within the rules, in a certain manner, regardless of the aesthetic quality to you, does not constitute being 'anti' football.

[SneakyDoug]

Chelsea did NOT play anti-football and there is no such thing as "anti-football" if you win the game. "Anti-football" would to just concede defeat which Chelsea never did.

Also who cares if they don't develop players that isn't the object the object is to win (which they did). And as many of you don't think Barca spend lots of money buying lots of developed players - Villa 40m, Fabregas 35m, Alves 29m, Abidal 19m, Sanchez 38m to name a few. And Chelsea's most expensive player in their team, bar Torres, was Drogba at 25m. And plus a lot of their youth players go on loan or they sell them (with buy back clauses) to develop - not them developing at Barca.

Also having possesion is not an indicator of how well a team played and just because you have 40% possesion does not mean you were the worse team, as many teams let the opponent have possesion then counter attack (as they did vs barca).

Also just because Bayern missed chances does not mean Chelsea were less deserving if anything that means they were more deserving as they dealt with the pressure of the final better.

[rorydaredking]

(Original post by TheHansa)
The team who wins always deserves to win imo.

The manager had a strategy which was avoid losing at all costs but don't go for all out victory and they stuck to it, it wasn't pretty but Cech was amazing, the defensive performance was fantastic all round and they made use of what chances they got better than Bayern.

Not in a cup competition

[Gridiron-Gangster]

(Original post by muffingg)
From a neutral aspect, what do you think and why? I know it doesn't matter since they won, but I'm just interested in what people's thoughts are because I was having an argument with a friend about this.

Arguments for:

* They beat Barcelona quite greatly
* They defended really well especially Ashley Cole
* They used their chances much better than Bayern yesterday
* Cech was absolutely brilliant
* They beat the reigning champion and arguably best team in the world (Barcelona)

Arguments against:

* They didn't play attractive football
* They didn't attack and at times were defending with 11 men
* They buy too many developed players rather than developing them
* They hardly had possession against Bayern
* Bayern had a lot more chances including the missed penalty kick

Over the entire campaign? Yes. On the night? Yes

Why? Sure Bayern outplayed them for large parts, had more shots on goal and should have been out of sight even before they did eventually score so late on in the game. But that's just it.....they were so wasteful it was unbelievable. They had a full-strength team, on their home turf in front of a staidum 2/3 of which was filled with their own fans against a Chelsea team who stuttered to 6th place in the Premier League and had 4 or 5 key players either suspended or injured. Chelsea were ripe for the picking and Bayern blew just like they did in 1999. Chelsea kept at it even when under the kosh and deservedly equalised. Then that penalty save.....lady luck smiled on Chelsea and then the penalty shoot-out. Chelsea did what they set out to do which was to beat Bayern over the course of the entire match. Doesn't matter if you outplay them for 80 minutes or so and have a thousand shots on goal, if you don't take your chances then you aren't going to win. Chelsea deserved to win it and they did.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by SneakyDoug)
Chelsea did NOT play anti-football and there is no such thing as "anti-football" if you win the game. "Anti-football" would to just concede defeat which Chelsea never did.

Also who cares if they don't develop players that isn't the object the object is to win (which they did). And as many of you don't think Barca spend lots of money buying lots of developed players - Villa 40m, Fabregas 35m, Alves 29m, Abidal 19m, Sanchez 38m to name a few. And Chelsea's most expensive player in their team, bar Torres, was Drogba at 25m. And plus a lot of their youth players go on loan or they sell them (with buy back clauses) to develop - not them developing at Barca.

Also having possesion is not an indicator of how well a team played and just because you have 40% possesion does not mean you were the worse team, as many teams let the opponent have possesion then counter attack (as they did vs barca).

Also just because Bayern missed chances does not mean Chelsea were less deserving if anything that means they were more deserving as they dealt with the pressure of the final better.

You represent everything that is wrong with football today.

[SneakyDoug]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
You represent everything that is wrong with football today.

You support Aberdeen...

[ACollins]

(Original post by SneakyDoug)
Chelsea did NOT play anti-football and there is no such thing as "anti-football" if you win the game. "Anti-football" would to just concede defeat which Chelsea never did.

Also who cares if they don't develop players that isn't the object the object is to win (which they did). And as many of you don't think Barca spend lots of money buying lots of developed players - Villa 40m, Fabregas 35m, Alves 29m, Abidal 19m, Sanchez 38m to name a few. And Chelsea's most expensive player in their team, bar Torres, was Drogba at 25m. And plus a lot of their youth players go on loan or they sell them (with buy back clauses) to develop - not them developing at Barca.

Also having possesion is not an indicator of how well a team played and just because you have 40% possesion does not mean you were the worse team, as many teams let the opponent have possesion then counter attack (as they did vs barca).

Also just because Bayern missed chances does not mean Chelsea were less deserving if anything that means they were more deserving as they dealt with the pressure of the final better.

I'm not sure you really understand the concept of anti-football. I'm not a fan of wikipedia but I think it is described aptly here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-football.

[Gridiron-Gangster]

(Original post by rorydaredking)
Not in a cup competition

I agree and disagree there. Sure anything can happen in a cup game but to "get lucky" for 10 or so different games, home and away over the course of the season, there's more than luck factoring in it.

Even when teams that won it in years gone by who were 'lucky'; Liverpool (2005), united (yes they were lucky to an extennt in 1999), Porto (2004) and Chelsea they all had good players and good managers. I doubt a team like say Stoke (no disrespect) could win a competition like the Champions League based on luck alone. Sooner or later they'll be caught short. Chelsea had talent in the likes of Drogba, Lampard, Cole, Cech etc to call upon in the final and Di Matteo clearly isn't a rubbish manager.

There's an element of luck in all sports/competitions. I'd say that even my team Man City were lucky to win the league. They had a clear advantage for so long and then blew it big time especially with miserable results against teams they should have beaten with their eyes closed. When United had that 8 point lead so late into the campaign we all pretty much thought that was it over and done with. And then United did what I can only describe as the biggest cockup since Neville Chamberlain. Even then City were incredibly lucky to get the result they did against QPR. Had that been a better team like say Stoke or Everton, City may well have lost the game outright and I'd still be sulking now. But the fact City could call on the likes of Aguero, Dzeko, Zabaletta, Tevez etc and had a good manager in Mancini meant that it was never impossible for City to achieve their destiny and as well as having luck on their side to an extent they very much dictated their own fate.

So yes luck is a factor it always is in anything we do but luck alone can only get you so far if you don't have the raw talent.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by SneakyDoug)
You support Aberdeen...

And I live in Aberdeen. Would you have me be a glory hunter? What's ruining the game is ultra-defensive ****ery and high finance capitalism at the cost of dignity, the beautiful game, and making your community proud.

[Gridiron-Gangster]

(Original post by Marco Dilivio)
Im still puzzled how people say chelsea "deserved" to win? what made them deserve it? defending for 120 minutes against a superior side that would have moped the floor with them if chelsea at least tried to play football

good on chelsea for winning but saying they deserved it is ridiculous

Defending against a superior side? Isn't that the whole point of football to score/defend/not concede?

Frankly Bayern had all the chances in the world to "mop the floor" with Chelsea and as I pointed out and everyone else observed worlwide including Barack Obama who was watching the game too (apparently) Bayern didn't take their chances and Chelsea did what you'd expect any team to do in any big final match and keeping pressing for the goal/result and Chelsea did it. They were outplayed perhaps in the first 70 minutes or so but then Chelsea outplayed them before the end of the evening. People say penalties are a lottery but they're a test of nerve and skill and Chelsea proved to be strong in terms of penalty skills and nerve.

The fact they could defend tooth and nail and keep Bayern at bay shows they played a great game, they're a strong team defensively and had they played like that all season, they may well have made the title race a 3 horse race.

Usually the end result is never wrong and the best team came out on top and that was Chelsea and hats off to them.

[kingkongjaffa]

The odds were against them the entire tournament, and up until bayern won that penalty I didn't care but when they wrongfully got given a penalty and then cech saved it I wanted them to win and was glad they did

[fosterwho]

No, they didn't deserve to win. Yeah sure, I'm English, but I couldn't help feeling sorry for Munich. They dominated for most of that game and when it came down to something as 50-50 as penalties, they lost.

[Gridiron-Gangster]

(Original post by fosterwho)
No, they didn't deserve to win. Yeah sure, I'm English, but I couldn't help feeling sorry for Munich. They dominated for most of that game and when it came down to something as 50-50 as penalties, they lost.

Bayern didn't lose because of a penalty shootout, they lost because they didn't take the chances that were presented to them on a plate re: scoring with less than 10 minutes left (complacent defending cost them), that penalty miss by Robben, wasteful in the shootout, not making the most of what was essentially the most partisan of crowds you'll ever find in a Champions League final. Compared to most finals featuring English teams the Chelsea fans were way outnumbered and pretty much drowned out. Chelsea may as well have been playing in Siberia.

[M4LLY]

Tbh they worked ard for it, therefore they deserved to win.